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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-osWrote 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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/review-remote)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/review-remote"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/review-remote/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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/review-remote"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/review-remote.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 | $0.00009 | $0.00617 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00309 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
review-remote scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
<output_format>
<what_to_return>Review findings summary (count, severity breakdown), the review-iter-<N>.yaml path under tmp/code-review/<branchPath>/, publish state (draft or published), and next action suggestion.</what_to_return>
</output_format>
<user_input>$ARGUMENTS</user_input>
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 · 52 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A f6bded765530
review-remote is a command published in the GitHub repository juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os (38 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 617 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-07.
Other commands, from other repositories
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
validate-pr-description
Use when validating a PR title and description for conventional commit format, issue linking keywords, and template compliance before submission.
github
(dev-only) github maintainer harness — GitHub issue-fix and PR-review via gh CLI. NOT distributed to user projects.
pr-quality-gate-architect
You are reviewing a pull request for architectural design and system structure concerns.
pr-quality-gate-code-quality
You are reviewing a pull request for the maintainability of the code it changes: how cohesive, loosely coupled, encapsulated, testable, and non-redundant the touched code is, and whether the author left each file at least as clean as they found it.
pr-quality-gate-decision-rigor
You are reviewing a pull request for the quality of the reasoning behind a decision, not just the code that implements it.