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/oborchers/fractional-ctoWrote 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/oborchers/fractional-cto/package-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/oborchers/fractional-cto/package-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oborchers/fractional-cto/package-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/oborchers/fractional-cto/package-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oborchers/fractional-cto/package-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 | $0.00041 | $0.00365 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00146 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00073 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00036 |
Grade A, and why
package-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.
What it actually says
Review the Python package currently being worked on against the python-package principles.
Follow this process:
- Identify which python-package areas are relevant to the current context (project structure, pyproject.toml, code quality, testing, CI/CD, documentation, versioning, API design, packaging, security, developer experience)
- For each relevant area, invoke the corresponding python-package skill
- Evaluate the current code and configuration against each skill's review checklist
- Report findings organized by principle, using this format for each:
[Principle Name]
- Violations found (with specific file/line references)
- What to fix and how (show the correct configuration or code)
- Items that already comply
- Provide a summary with:
- Total violations count by severity (critical / important / suggestion)
- Top 3 most impactful fixes to make first
- Overall package health score (exemplary / solid / adequate / needs-work / non-compliant)
Severity guide:
- Critical: Deviations from PEPs, missing pyproject.toml fields, no type checking, no CI, security vulnerabilities
- Important: Suboptimal configuration, missing coverage thresholds, incomplete documentation structure, poor API surface design
- Suggestion: Minor improvements, better naming, additional checklist items, optimization opportunities
Focus on concrete, specific violations. Every finding must reference the exact principle and PEP/standard being violated. No vague "consider improving" — state what is wrong and what the fix is.
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 · 31 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 2a1a23dd5ded
package-review is a command published in the GitHub repository oborchers/fractional-cto (32 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 365 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-13.
Other commands, from other repositories
notebook-review
Comprehensive review of Jupyter notebooks and Python scripts.
python-review
Comprehensive Python code review for PEP 8 compliance, type hints, security, and Pythonic idioms. Invokes the python-reviewer agent.
review-uv-script
Review uv Python script for PEP 723 compliance and best practices.
review-react-code
A command that reviews React and TypeScript code, including how components are organised, how Hooks are used, how state is handled, and how the code performs.
py-structure
Analyze and recommend project structure improvements. Checks file sizes, layer organization, module splitting, and hexagonal architecture compliance.
py-harden
Scan Python backend code for anti-patterns and fix them. Runs the full anti-pattern catalog (AP-01 through AP-22) against the codebase.