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/commit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/commit/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/commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/commit.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 | $0.00828 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00331 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
commit 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Commit
Quality-gate the diff, auto-fix safe issues, and write a Conventional Commit.
A focused pipeline: understand the change, hold it to the four quality dimensions, fix the safe stuff, then commit with a clean message. No ceremony — no ticket lookup, no metrics.
Step 1 — Analyze the change
git status
git diff --stat
Read every changed file (staged + unstaged) so you understand the change, not just the lines.
If nothing is staged, stage the relevant files (git add -p mindset — only what belongs in
this commit). If the diff mixes two unrelated concerns, offer to split it into two commits.
Step 2 — Quality gate (4 dimensions)
Check the diff against the bar in AGENTS.md → Code quality bar:
| Dimension | Look for |
|---|---|
| Correctness | null safety, error handling, edge cases, exhaustive cases, no placeholder/debug logging |
| Design | clear names, short functions, no magic numbers, no dead code |
| Security | no hardcoded secrets, no logged credentials, validated input |
| Efficiency | no duplicated logic, no reinvented stdlib, no obvious perf traps |
Report what you found, grouped by dimension. Be concrete (file:line).
Step 3 — Auto-fix the safe issues
Fix in priority order Correctness → Design → Security → Efficiency. Only fix what is genuinely wrong and behavior-preserving. Leave anything judgment-heavy or risky for the developer — list those instead of touching them. If a fix would change >50% of a file, ask first. Re-stage after fixing.
Step 4 — Write the commit message
Conventional Commits: type(scope): subject
SUBJECT="feat(export): add CSV export to the reports page" # example
Validate before committing — all must pass:
- Prefix: one of
feat|fix|refactor|perf|test|docs|chore|style|build|ci, optional(scope). - Length: subject ≤ 72 chars.
- Mood: imperative —
add, notadded/adds/adding. - No trailing period.
- Body: add 1–3 lines explaining why when the subject doesn't make it obvious. Wrap a bug fix's body with what broke and how this fixes it.
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 · 93 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8d7a86f880e3
commit 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 828 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
elegant-code-review
Review the current working diff against the elegant-code decision ladder and propose deletions, honoring the negligence floor.
prp-commit
Quick commit with natural language file targeting: describe what to commit in plain English.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
gsd:pr-branch
Create a clean PR branch by filtering out .planning/ commits — ready for code review.
validate-pr-description
Use when validating a PR title and description for conventional commit format, issue linking keywords, and template compliance before submission.
karpathy-check
Revisa as alterações em stage (ou o último commit) com base nos 4 princípios de codificação do Karpathy. Verifica complexidade, ruído no diff, suposições ocultas e verificação de objetivos. Uso: /karpathy-check [--last-commit].