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/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-toolsWrote 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/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/review-pr/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/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/review-pr.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00797 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00319 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 — 43 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are coordinating a PR review for: $ARGUMENTS
Parse arguments:
- A GitHub URL → GitHub mode. A Bitbucket URL → Bitbucket mode. A bare number → detect the provider from
git remote get-url origin(github.com → GitHub mode, bitbucket.org → Bitbucket mode; ask the user if neither). A branch name → local mode (second token = base branch, defaulting to the repo's default branch). --councilpresent → Council mode (3 panelists + chair). Absent → Solo mode (singlepr-reviewer).
Preflight
- GitHub mode: confirm
ghis authenticated (gh auth status). If not, tell the user to rungh auth login, and offer local mode. - Bitbucket mode: confirm the Atlassian/Bitbucket MCP server is connected. If not, tell the user to run
/mcp, and offer local mode. - Local mode:
git rev-parse --verifythe branch and base; tryorigin/<branch>after a fetch if missing; ask the user if still missing.
Solo mode (default — cheap, for routine PRs)
- Invoke
pr-reviewerwith the PR id/URL and provider mode, or branch + base. - Relay verdict, severity counts, report path.
- Continue to "Handle verdict".
Council mode (--council — for critical / high-risk PRs)
- Invoke these THREE panelists IN PARALLEL, each with the same PR id/URL and provider mode, or branch + base:
pr-reviewer-securitypr-reviewer-architecturepr-reviewer-correctnessEach writes its own lens report to./plans/pr-review-<id-or-slug>.<lens>.md. Do not review code yourself.
- After all three return, invoke
pr-review-chairwith the same id/slug. The chair reads the three reports, reconciles them, and writes the canonical./plans/pr-review-<id-or-slug>.md. - Relay the chair's authoritative verdict, must-fix count, canonical report path, top 3 must-fixes.
- Continue to "Handle verdict" using the CHAIR's verdict (panelist verdicts are inputs, not the decision).
Handle verdict
REQUEST_CHANGES: ask the user what to do —- fix findings now via
prd-executor(must-fixes first; in council mode re-run only the chair after fixes unless a fix changed scope enough to warrant re-running a panelist — max 2 cycles, then escalate), or - post findings as comments on the PR (GitHub:
gh pr comment; Bitbucket: MCP) — ONLY with explicit user approval, comment-posting only, never approve/decline/merge, or - leave the report local.
- fix findings now via
APPROVE: list remaining MAJOR/MINOR notes. Offer (don't do) posting an approval summary.
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 · 43 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A f67533932628
review-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 797 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
release
Release manager for frontend and mobile. Writes App Store notes, user-facing changelog, flags stale docs and landing copy. Actions: notes | changelog | docs | sync.
hypothesis
Run hypothesis-driven research with git branching and evidence gathering.
pr
Prepare and open a pull request the senior way: gate, template, scrubbed, everything visible.
worktree
Manage git worktrees for isolated feature development.
status
The state of play, computed fresh: branch, dirty files, the active sprint, open work, index freshness.
lucius
Segunda opinión técnica externa vía Codex CLI — diagnóstico y prescripción por ítem.