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/aigon-feature-set-spec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jayvee/aigon/aigon-feature-set-spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jayvee/aigon/aigon-feature-set-spec-review/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/aigon-feature-set-spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jayvee/aigon/aigon-feature-set-spec-review.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01188 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00475 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00238 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
aigon-feature-set-spec-review 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to feature-set-spec-review — 5 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
aigon-feature-set-spec-review
Review all reviewable specs in a feature set together. This is still spec review, not implementation: do not start features, do not modify non-spec files, and do not run target-repo build/test commands unless a spec explicitly requires read-only verification.
You are already inside the set-wide spec review task for set {{SET_SLUG}}.
- Do not run
aigon feature-set-spec-review {{SET_SLUG}}again. - Do not run
aigon feature-spec-reviseon any member until authors are ready — that is a later per-feature step. - Edit member specs in place only.
- Create one
spec-review:commit per affected feature spec (never one combined multi-spec commit). - After each edited spec, start and record that member's spec-review cycle with
aigon feature-spec-review <id|slug> --no-launch, thenaigon feature-spec-review-record <id|slug>.
Set context
Set slug: {{SET_SLUG}}
Ordered members (dependency / topological order):
{{SET_MEMBER_TABLE}}
Intra-set dependency edges:
{{SET_DEPENDENCY_EDGES}}
Member specs (editable)
Only the specs below are in the active review set. Done or in-progress members are omitted from editing but may appear in the table above for dependency context.
{{SET_MEMBER_SPECS}}
Review rubric
Spec Review Rubric
Review the spec against this checklist. Prefer small, targeted edits over broad rewrites.
Specificity
- Replace vague language with concrete behavior, constraints, and outcomes.
- Name exact commands, files, states, and data shapes where they matter.
Completeness
- Ensure the happy path, error path, and lifecycle edge cases are covered.
- Call out missing UX states, integration seams, or follow-up commits/tests the spec requires.
Testability
- Acceptance criteria should be observable and falsifiable.
- Prefer criteria that can be checked with a command, visible UI state, or concrete artifact.
Scope clarity
- Remove work that belongs in a follow-up feature.
- Flag hidden expansion of scope, especially cross-cutting work that was not signalled in the spec.
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 · 125 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 698ba52020c2
aigon-feature-set-spec-review is a command published in the GitHub repository jayvee/aigon (26 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,188 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to feature-set-spec-review, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
mach12:issue-review
Read a GitHub issue and all comments, review the implementation plan, and present findings.
mach12:pr-review-assessment
Independently assess each finding from a PR review and classify it.
mach12:pr-review-fix
Fix specific issues identified in a PR review.
mach12:pr-review
Run a comprehensive PR review with independent reviewers and post the results as a structured comment.
mach12:gh-pr-read
Read a GitHub pull request's title, body, and all top-level PR conversation comments; optionally locate an HTML-marker comment.
mach12:pr-validation-assessment
Independently assess executable PR candidates and commit accepted proofs.