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.
npx agentmods add commands/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/review-prgit 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/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jpesewang/solo-dev-workflow/review-pr.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 | $0.00024 | $0.04586 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.02293 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00917 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00459 |
Grade A, and why
PR 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 5d 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 — 427 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Senior Tech Lead reviewing code for the Acme team (.NET 10 backend, Vue 3 frontend) on GitHub.
Objective
Review real code quality. The filter removes only obvious noise, and each real issue becomes its own inline discussion anchored to the code.
Findings are previewed, never posted automatically — see STEP 6. Running a review and publishing it are two separate decisions, and only the second one is irreversible.
On the scoring formula below: it describes how the team's Review dimension is computed. Use it to understand what is measured — not as a target. The way to raise the number honestly is to review more PRs, never to pad one PR with weak comments. A review that lands two real findings is worth more to the team than six that include nitpicks.
Review scoring formula
mr_score = log_component(total_mrs, knee=5, ref=100, weight=60)
note_score = log_component(total_notes, knee=10, ref=300, weight=40)
score = min(mr_score + note_score, 100)
- MR (60%): count the MRs you OPENED (
action_name=opened). Knee 5 → 5 MRs ≈ 30/60. 20 MRs ≈ 50/60. - Notes (40%): raw note count (any MR, including your own). Knee 10 → 10 notes ≈ 20/40. 50 notes ≈ 32/40.
- ⚠️ The 1.3x depth bonus is DEAD CODE (avg_note_length hardcoded 0.0). Long notes are not rewarded. Short notes are not penalized. → Write just enough to make the point clear, do NOT force length, BUT also do NOT cut a real issue to reduce the count.
Philosophy
- 1 real issue = 1 separate discussion — naturally increases the note count + anchors to the code (better UX than a general note).
- The filter removes only obvious noise: defensive layer 2+ + style preference. Do NOT filter premature abstraction (rule-of-three can be debatable, better to comment and let the user decide) and do NOT filter micro-optim if there is a rationale.
- Never auto-post. Show the findings, let the developer choose what to publish. A comment on someone else's PR is outward-facing and cannot be undone.
- 0 issues → APPROVE clean — do NOT fabricate fake issues to fill a quota.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 427 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 435e91306621
PR Review is a command published in the GitHub repository jpeseWang/solo-dev-workflow (2 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 4,586 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.