Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jayvee/aigonWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/jayvee/aigon/afsr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jayvee/aigon/afsr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jayvee/aigon/afsr/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jayvee/aigon/afsr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jayvee/aigon/afsr.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00020 | $0.01706 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00682 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00171 |
Grade A, and why
afsr scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- feature-spec-review — 98% identical, 2 lines differ
- aigon-feature-spec-review — 86% identical, 26 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
aigon-feature-spec-review
Review the feature spec itself, not the code. Edit the spec in place using the shared rubric below, then commit the reviewed spec with a spec-review: commit.
Your job: WRITE a review of this spec. That means reading it, making targeted edits in place, and creating one spec-review: commit that records your findings. You are the reviewer. Do not check for or process anyone else's reviews — that is a separate downstream task (feature-spec-revise) and is not what you are doing here.
If git log shows no prior spec-review: commits on this spec, that is expected — your review will be the first. Do not exit with "no pending reviews"; that would be the check workflow, not this one.
You are already inside the spec-review task for this feature.
- Do not run
aigon feature-spec-review {{args}}again. - Do not run
aigon feature-spec-revise {{args}}— that is a different command for a later stage, run by the feature author after reviewers have completed their review. It is not your job here. - Do not ask the shell to start the same command recursively.
- Use the resolved spec path below, edit that spec in place, then make the required
spec-review:commit and runaigon feature-spec-review-record {{args}}. - If you cannot complete the commit or record step, stop and report the blocker instead of making a generic commit.
Resolve the spec
SPEC_PATH=$(aigon feature-spec {{args}} 2>/dev/null || true)
if [ -z "$SPEC_PATH" ]; then
SPEC_PATH=$(find docs/specs/features -maxdepth 2 \( -name "feature-{{args}}-*.md" -o -name "feature-{{args}}.md" \) | head -1)
fi
test -n "$SPEC_PATH" && echo "$SPEC_PATH"
If SPEC_PATH is empty, stop and report that the feature spec could not be resolved.
Read the spec before editing:
cat "$SPEC_PATH"
Research context (skip when none)
If the spec frontmatter has a research: field, read the linked findings before reviewing — the spec is supposed to be grounded in those conclusions. Evaluate whether the acceptance criteria and technical approach reflect what the research actually surfaced. Skip when no research: field is present.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 170 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 888d855a7995
afsr is a command published in the GitHub repository jayvee/aigon (26 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,706 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
mach12:push
Commit, push, and post a progress comment using session context or branch detection.
session-report
Capture what changed this session and why, scoped to the current branch. Read by ship verbs when synthesizing the commit message; deleted after a successful commit.
commit
Stage, commit, and optionally ship further. Pass an escalation token (push, pr, merge, squash, squash merge) to skip the prompt. With no token, commits then asks how far to ship. Delegates message format to the atomic-git-discipline skill.
commit.en
Commit the current changes to Git.
commit.zh-CN
A command for creating a Git commit, which is a saved checkpoint of changes in a Git project.
hatch3r-pr-resolve
Read open PR comments, evaluate each against current code via the rigor contract, implement accepted findings, reply inline. Multi-platform.