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/leanandmean/mach10/pr-review-fixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LeanAndMean/mach10Wrote 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/leanandmean/mach10/pr-review-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/leanandmean/mach10/pr-review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/leanandmean/mach10/pr-review-fix.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 | $0.00010 | $0.01625 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00813 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00325 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00162 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review-fix 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 6d 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 — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fix Review Issues
You are fixing specific issues identified in a PR review. This command gathers context from the PR and its review comments, then delegates to the feature-dev workflow for implementation.
User input: $ARGUMENTS
Step 0: Parse input and create task list
The user's input typically contains:
- A PR number (required)
--review-comment <id>flag with a numeric comment ID (optional)--assessment-comment <id>flag with a numeric comment ID (optional)- Finding identifiers to fix -- space-separated F/S identifiers (e.g.,
F1 F2 S3) or bare numbers as fallback (optional) - Additional context or constraints (optional)
Example inputs:
108(PR only -- read the PR and determine which review findings to fix)108 F1 F2 S3108 --review-comment 1234567890 --assessment-comment 1234567891 F1 F2 S3108 --review-comment 1234567890 F1 S2 focus on error handling
Extract the PR number. Parse --review-comment and --assessment-comment flags if present (each followed by a numeric ID). If finding identifiers are provided (F/S prefixed or bare numbers), note them. If the input is ambiguous, ask the user to clarify.
After parsing input, create the progress-tracking task list. Create a task for Step 0 and immediately mark it in progress. Then create tasks for each of the remaining 4 steps one at a time, in step order, all starting as pending. Task list display order matches creation order, so each task must be a separate sequential call -- do not batch multiple task creations in a single message. Store each returned task ID for later use -- do not assume IDs are sequential.
| Task | Subject | activeForm |
|---|---|---|
| Step 0 | Step 0: Parse input and create task list | Parsing input |
| Step 1 | Step 1: Gather PR and review context | Gathering context |
| Step 2 | Step 2: Identify issues to fix | Identifying issues |
| Step 3 | Step 3: Delegate review fixes to feature-dev | Delegating review fixes to feature-dev |
| Step 4 | Step 4: Recommend next steps | Recommending next steps |
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 143 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A aeeab344805a
pr-review-fix is a command published in the GitHub repository LeanAndMean/mach10 (20 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 1,625 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
crystallize
Promote extracted incident knowledge into global patterns and agent improvements.
doctor
Health check for greatcto. Shows pipeline state, missing artefacts, hook status, last run per agent, and permission-denied tail.
review
12-angle code review + skeptical triage (3-round + arbiter) for security/reliability P0/P1 findings, OR traceability tree. Default: review current branch vs main. --deep: triage ALL P0/P1 angles (not just security). With trace : render REQ → IMPL → TEST tree for impact analysis. Creates or closes gate:code for…
cost
Cost & capacity health — LLM router savings, run-rate, cost-per-deploy, ROI per shipped feature, WoW/MoM delta. Pairs with /digest (delivery+DORA) and /burn (reliability).
audit
Audit an existing codebase. Detects stack, finds gaps, creates tasks, generates PROJECT.md.
sec
Security umbrella: posture metrics, threat model, SBOM, incident workflow. Subcommands: status (default) | threat | sbom | incident | rotate.