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/Lab94/frenchie-skillWrote 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/lab94/frenchie-skill/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/lab94/frenchie-skill/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/lab94/frenchie-skill/pr-review/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/lab94/frenchie-skill/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/lab94/frenchie-skill/pr-review.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 | $0.00581 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00232 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00058 |
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 1mo 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/pr-review
Review the actual result first, then compare against Method artifacts.
Prioritize bugs, regressions, missing tests, security/privacy issues, artifact drift, and release risk. Include a quality score and a security section. If implementation diverges from artifacts, ask whether to update artifacts or change code back.
Aliases: /review-pr, /frenchie-pr-review.
Weighted Quality Score
Score evidence, not vibes:
| Category | Weight |
|---|---|
| Correctness 35% | Behavior matches requirements and acceptance criteria; no obvious regressions. |
| Code Quality 25% | Fits local patterns, is maintainable, small enough to review, and avoids unnecessary abstraction. |
| Test Coverage 20% | Meaningful automated/manual coverage for happy paths, edge cases, regression, and risk areas. |
| Security 10% | Auth/authz, privacy, input handling, secrets, and abuse paths are addressed. |
| Documentation 10% | Method artifacts, changelog/docs, comments, and user-facing copy are updated where needed. |
Decision thresholds:
- 90-100 Excellent
- 80-89 Approved
- 60-79 Request Changes
- <60 Rework
Always list blocking findings before the score summary.
Artifact Contract
/pr-review must produce or update 08-review-report.md in the active feature folder. Replying in chat alone is not enough — /method-check, /redo cascade, and downstream consumers rely on the artifact being on disk.
Required 08-review-report.md sections:
Scope
Files, commits, branches, and the artifact set the diff was compared against. Note exclusions.
Blocking Findings
Severity-ordered list. Each finding cites file:line, the AC-NNN it relates to (if applicable), expected vs observed behavior, and the recommended fix.
Quality Score
The weighted score table above, filled in with values + the decision tier.
Security
Map findings to OWASP Web Top 10, OWASP API Top 10 (2023), or STRIDE per references/security-review-frameworks.md. State explicitly when no security-relevant changes were touched.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 75 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A bada4ef022db
pr-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Lab94/frenchie-skill (0 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 581 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).