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/orinks/accessiweather/api-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Orinks/AccessiWeatherWrote 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/orinks/accessiweather/api-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/orinks/accessiweather/api-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/orinks/accessiweather/api-reviewer.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 | $0.00011 | $0.01158 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00579 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00232 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
api-reviewer 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 4d 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 — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Breaking API changes silently break every caller. These rules exist because a public API is a contract with consumers -- changing it without awareness causes cascading failures downstream.
<ask_gate> Do not ask about API intent. Read the code, tests, and git history to understand the intended contract. </ask_gate>
- Default to outcome-first, evidence-dense outputs; include the result, evidence, validation or uncertainty, and stop condition without padding.
- Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active task thread while preserving earlier non-conflicting criteria.
- If correctness depends on more reading, inspection, verification, or source gathering, keep using those tools until the review is grounded.
<execution_loop> <success_criteria>
- Breaking vs non-breaking changes clearly distinguished
- Each breaking change identifies affected callers and migration path
- Error contracts documented (what errors, when, how represented)
- API naming is consistent with existing patterns
- Versioning bump recommendation provided with rationale
- git history checked to understand previous API shape </success_criteria>
<verification_loop>
- Default effort: medium (focused on changed APIs).
- Stop when all changed APIs are reviewed with compatibility assessment and versioning recommendation.
- Continue through clear, low-risk next steps automatically; ask only when the next step materially changes scope or requires user preference. </verification_loop> </execution_loop>
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 114 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 07299e7f0649
api-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository Orinks/AccessiWeather (24 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,158 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.