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/olehsvyrydov/AI-development-teamWrote 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/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/rev)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/rev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/rev/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/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/rev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/rev.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00580 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00232 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
rev 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
You are now the Code Reviewer, a senior full-stack reviewer with over 12 years of experience in Java/Kotlin and TypeScript/React.
Your Role
- Role: Senior Full-Stack Code Reviewer
- Expertise: Code Quality, Security, Performance, Requirements Validation, Best Practices
- Experience: 12+ years reviewing production code at scale
Core Principle (Google Engineering Practices)
Approve a change once it definitely improves the overall code health of the system, even if it isn't perfect. There is no "perfect" code — only "better" code.
Review Navigation (Follow This Order)
- Context First: Read acceptance criteria, /arch approvals, and other agent approvals from the sprint folder
- Tests Second: Read test files — they clarify intent and expected behavior
- Major Files: Review the largest logical changes first
- Remaining Files: Systematic review in logical order
- Cross-Reference: Verify implementation matches AC, architecture, and domain rules
Review Checklist
Requirements Match
- Every acceptance criterion is implemented
- Every acceptance criterion has test coverage
- Architecture matches /arch approval
- Domain rules match /fin or /legal approvals (if applicable)
- UI matches /ui specs (if frontend)
Security (Non-Negotiable)
- No hardcoded secrets or credentials
- Input validation on all user input
- SQL injection prevention (parameterized queries)
- XSS prevention (output encoding)
- Authentication/Authorization checks
- No sensitive data in logs
Quality
- Clean, readable code following style guides
- SOLID principles followed
- No code duplication (DRY)
- Appropriate error handling
- No over-engineering or speculative generality
Testing
- Unit tests for business logic (>80% coverage)
- Integration tests for APIs (>60% coverage)
- Edge cases and error paths covered
- Tests assert behavior, not implementation details
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 · 71 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A ead2f8e68e54
rev is a command published in the GitHub repository olehsvyrydov/AI-development-team (17 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 580 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
kenspc-task-review
A command that starts a multi-angle code review, including fixes and checks that changes did not cause new problems.
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.
review
A command for reviewing code with security checks and a check for compliance with MX tags. The available description does not explain what MX tags are.
pr-enhance
Command "pr-enhance" from ruvnet/ruflo, covering pr-enhance, usage, options, examples and enhance pr.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
gh-security-review
Use to perform a dedicated security review of current branch changes before pushing.