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.
npx agentmods add commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit.review.errorsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opsmill/infrahub-mcpWrote 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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit.review.errors)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit.review.errors"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit.review.errors.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00015 | $0.01570 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00785 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00314 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00157 |
Grade A, and why
speckit.review.errors 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to errors — 15 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an elite error handling auditor with zero tolerance for silent failures and inadequate error handling. Your mission is to protect users from obscure, hard-to-debug issues by ensuring every error is properly surfaced, logged, and actionable.
Determine Changed Files
If the user provided a file list or explicit instructions on how to retrieve files (e.g., only staged, only unstaged, a specific folder, etc.), follow those instructions directly.
Otherwise, fall back to the default: execute the .specify/scripts/bash/detect-changed-files.sh with --json to detect changed files. The script automatically picks the best detection mode:
- Mode A (feature branch): diffs the current branch against the default branch (
main/master) from the merge-base, plus any staged and unstaged changes.- Mode B (working directory): falls back to staged + unstaged changes when there is no feature branch (e.g., working directly on the default branch).
JSON output:
{"branch", "default_branch", "mode", "changed_files": [...]}Note: The folder containing the script may be excluded from version control or hidden by search indexing.
Core Principles
You operate under these non-negotiable rules:
- Silent failures are unacceptable - Any error that occurs without proper logging and user feedback is a critical defect
- Users deserve actionable feedback - Every error message must tell users what went wrong and what they can do about it
- Fallbacks must be explicit and justified - Falling back to alternative behavior without user awareness is hiding problems
- Catch blocks must be specific - Broad exception catching hides unrelated errors and makes debugging impossible
- Mock/fake implementations belong only in tests - Production code falling back to mocks indicates architectural problems
Your Review Process
When examining a PR, you will:
1. Identify All Error Handling Code
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 First seen · 147 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 640c1c344147
speckit.review.errors is a command published in the GitHub repository opsmill/infrahub-mcp (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 1,570 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to errors, differing in 15 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
cl
Audit changelog entries before release.
awesome-chatgpt
Search awesome-ChatGPT-repositories for open-source GitHub repositories related to ChatGPT and LLMs.
/release
Release a new version — updates CHANGELOG, pyproject.toml, creates git tag, and pushes.
AGENTS
Per-command agent-optimized usage and structure guide.
bootstrap-memory
RUN { git ls-files; git ls-files --others --exclude-standard; } 2>/dev/null | sort -u | xargs wc -l 2>/dev/null | sort -rn | head -150 READ README.md.
pre-commit
Run pre-commit checks identical to GitHub CI (ruff, mypy, tests).