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/monoes/monomindWrote 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/monoes/monomind/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/monoes/monomind/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/monoes/monomind/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/monoes/monomind/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/monoes/monomind/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 | $0.00033 | $0.00646 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00258 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
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 yesterday.
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
First — extract repeat flags: Follow the REPEAT PREAMBLE from mastermind-repeat/SKILL.md. Extracts --repeat, --tillend, --maxruns, --wait, --rep, --loop from $ARGUMENTS before all other parsing. If is_continuation = true, skip the empty-prompt check and intake below.
Parse $ARGUMENTS for:
--autoflag → mode = auto--confirmflag → mode = confirm--project <name>→ project_name =- Remaining text = prompt
If prompt is empty: ask "What would you like reviewed?"
Load brain context for the review domain (follow mastermind-protocol/SKILL.md Brain Load Procedure).
Run intake if prompt is vague (follow mastermind-intake/SKILL.md — stop at Q3, domain is already known as review).
Default mode for this command: auto (unless --confirm flag present or intake Q4 says confirm).
Invoke Skill("mastermind-review") passing: brain_context, prompt, project_name, board_id (create if needed), mode.
After review findings are collected — AUTO-FIX STEP (mode = auto only):
When mode = auto (the default): if the review produced any fixable findings (code issues, bugs, style problems, security vulnerabilities with clear fixes), apply the fixes immediately in this same run. Do not ask the user whether to fix — auto mode means fix without asking. Specifically:
- For each fixable finding, edit the file directly to resolve it.
- After all fixes are applied, output a summary:
[review] Auto-fixed N issues. Remaining M issues require manual intervention. - Non-fixable findings (architectural concerns, design questions, trade-off decisions) are reported but not acted on.
When mode = confirm: present findings and ask the user which to fix. This is the ONLY mode where asking is appropriate.
When --tillend is active: auto-fix is especially critical. Without it, the loop finds the same unfixed issues every round and either loops forever or the AI falsely declares an empty round. The tillend contract is: find → fix → verify (next round) → stop when clean.
After skill returns: follow mastermind-protocol/SKILL.md Brain Write Procedure for domain review.
MANDATORY — invoke Skill("mastermind-repeat") now. This is required regardless of how the skill above completed, regardless of whether you think the work is done, regardless of whether you plan to end your response. For --repeat N: the count is non-negotiable — all N runs must happen. For --tillend: only a verified empty round (confirmed by git diff) stops the loop. Do not end your response without invoking this skill.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 37 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 54cfcfc11e2d
review is a command published in the GitHub repository monoes/monomind (23 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 646 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-10-26.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-diff
Review the current working diff for correctness, security, and reuse.
review-preflight
Fast deterministic review preparation without reviewer execution.
prepr
Prepara los cambios como Pull Request listo para review.
query
Ask questions about a repository/codebase and get detailed answers with file citations.
simplify
Code simplification review — find duplication, dead code, over-abstraction, and missed reuse.
kotlin-review
Comprehensive Kotlin code review for idiomatic patterns, null safety, coroutine safety, and security. Invokes the kotlin-reviewer agent.