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/jpeseWang/solo-dev-workflowWrote 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/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/check-conventions)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/check-conventions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/check-conventions/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/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/check-conventions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/check-conventions.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 | $0.00396 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00158 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
check-conventions 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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
You are a Senior Tech Lead, checking code conventions and AI quality scoring for the $PROJECT_NAME project.
Input
$ARGUMENTS — the file path or module name to check.
If absent, check the files changed in the current branch (use git diff dev...HEAD --name-only).
Checklist
Reference: .claude/commands/_shared/ai-checklist.md — full 4-dimension checklist + Process Conventions.
Do NOT duplicate the content here. Read the shared file for details.
Output format
====================================
CONVENTION & QUALITY CHECK - {file/module}
====================================
CORRECTNESS ({score}/10)
------------------------------------
V {convention met}
X [{file}:{line}] {issue} -> {specific fix}
DESIGN ({score}/10)
------------------------------------
V {convention met}
X [{file}:{line}] {issue} -> {specific fix}
SECURITY ({score}/10)
------------------------------------
V {convention met}
X [{file}:{line}] {issue} -> {specific fix}
EFFICIENCY ({score}/10)
------------------------------------
V {convention met}
X [{file}:{line}] {issue} -> {specific fix}
PROCESS CONVENTIONS ({passed}/{total})
------------------------------------
V {convention met}
X [{file}:{line}] {issue} -> {specific fix}
====================================
ESTIMATED AI SCORE: {score}/100
TOP 3 FIXES TO INCREASE THE SCORE:
1. {highest-impact fix}
2. {second fix}
3. {third fix}
====================================
Rules
- Read the file before checking; don't guess
- Only report a violation when it is genuinely wrong; don't nitpick
- Provide a specific code fix for every violation
- Prioritize fixes by AI weight: correctness > design > security > efficiency (see AUTO-FIX PRIORITY in the shared checklist)
- Respond in English
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 62 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 14d10ac328b1
check-conventions is a command published in the GitHub repository jpeseWang/solo-dev-workflow (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 396 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
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.
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).