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/lab94/frenchie-skill/pr-reviewgit 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.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00581 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00291 |
| Sonnet 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 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.
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.
- 3d 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 3mo 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
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
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.
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.