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/LeanAndMean/scramjetWrote 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/scramjet/mach12-pr-review-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/leanandmean/scramjet/mach12-pr-review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/leanandmean/scramjet/mach12-pr-review-fix/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/leanandmean/scramjet/mach12-pr-review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/leanandmean/scramjet/mach12-pr-review-fix.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 | $0.00008 | $0.04145 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00004 | $0.02073 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00829 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00415 |
Grade A, and why
mach12: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 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 — 188 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fix Review Issues
Goals
- Apply the smallest sound corrections for exactly the authenticated, selected review findings without expanding into unrelated review or cleanup work.
- Preserve accepted executable proofs where applicable, verify the repaired behavior, and leave the fixes committed, pushed, and durably documented.
- Give the user an evidence-based review-cycle retrospective and recommend the next verification path from the PR's current trajectory.
Step 1: Parse input
Extract:
- a required PR number;
- optional exact numeric
--review-commentand--assessment-commentIDs; - optional F/S finding identifiers;
- additional context or constraints.
For ordinary static reviews, preserve the documented bare-number fallback. For executable-validation findings, require canonical F/S IDs. When the authenticated assessment records accepted executable defects, require the invocation to include every accepted ID so committed red proofs are not intentionally left unfixed. Ask the user when the intended finding set is ambiguous.
Step 2: Gather PR and review context
Locate the review comment
If --review-comment was provided: Fetch the specific comment by ID, then fetch the PR context for additional grounding.
gh api repos/:owner/:repo/issues/comments/<review-comment-id>
Extract the body field from the JSON response. This is the review comment content. Then delegate to /mach12:gh-pr-read <pr-number> (no marker) for the PR title, body, and comments. For an ordinary static review, require the explicit comment ID to match exactly one recognized review in that complete verified target-PR comment stream before selecting findings or publishing the ID as provenance; otherwise stop. Validation-origin artifacts instead use the stronger authentication contract below.
If --review-comment was NOT provided (fallback): Delegate to:
/mach12:gh-pr-read <pr-number> --marker mach12-review
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 Changed · +14 lines 230ed0cd38dd
- 10d ago First seen · 174 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 4be872f3f8ab
mach12:pr-review-fix is a command published in the GitHub repository LeanAndMean/scramjet (7 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 4,145 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
computer
Drive a computer's screen, mouse, and keyboard.
find-issues
Find GitHub issues that a PR might fix.
afr
Review feature - code review with fixes by a different agent (shortcut for feature-code-review).
afrv
Revise the current feature worktree after code review — decide accept/revert/modify (shortcut for feature-code-revise).
afe
Evaluate feature - code review or comparison (shortcut for feature-eval).
find-duplicate-prs
Find open PRs that may duplicate a given PR.