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-spec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jayvee/aigon/aigon-feature-spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jayvee/aigon/aigon-feature-spec-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.01656 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00828 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00331 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00166 |
Grade A, and why
aigon-feature-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 3d 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
86% identical to afsr — 26 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 — 166 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 <name>again. - Do not run
aigon feature-spec-revise <name>— 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 <name>. - 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 <name> 2>/dev/null || true)
if [ -z "$SPEC_PATH" ]; then
SPEC_PATH=$(find docs/specs/features -maxdepth 2 \( -name "feature-<name>-*.md" -o -name "feature-<name>.md" \) | 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.
- 3d ago First seen · 166 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c0128d36cef7
aigon-feature-spec-review is a command published in the GitHub repository jayvee/aigon (25 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,656 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to afsr, differing in 26 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
done
Finish a task - document, create PR or merge, close.
start
Start session - restore context, show tasks, select work item.
note
Add a note to the active task - progress, decisions, context. --session (aliases --snapshot, --pre-compact, --compact) writes a resume-grade session snapshot without ending the session.
pr-ready
Run the project's pre-commit review loop to determine whether the current branch is ready to push — lint, tests, parallel pr-review-toolkit agents plus an over-engineering audit, fix-and-re-run until convergence.
create-pr
Create a pull request with proper template discovery and population.