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/Oriolshhh/runware-image-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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/review.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 5.1 | $0.00031 | $0.00329 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00164 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00066 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00033 |
Grade A, and why
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 7d 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 — Review the diff against the spec
Purpose
Find defects and risks in a diff before it merges.
Invocation
/review <spec name or branch>
Accepted input
The spec and the diff (or branch) under review.
Prerequisites
An implemented change and its spec.
Procedure
- Read the spec, then the diff.
- Confirm each requirement is implemented and tested.
- Check correctness and edge cases first, conventions and style second.
- Flag unrelated or out-of-scope changes.
- Label every finding Blocking or Non-blocking with a
file:linefix.
Approval points
The verdict is the approval decision: approve / approve-with-nits / request-changes.
Expected output
A verdict plus a labelled findings list.
Failure behavior
If the diff does not match the spec, request changes and stop.
Completion checks
- Each finding includes severity, evidence, impact, and the smallest concrete correction; questions are not presented as confirmed defects.
- Requirements, tests, regression risk, compatibility, security-sensitive paths, and gate results were checked.
- Give an unambiguous verdict and state the next command:
/fixor completion.
Agents and skills
Agent: reviewer. Skill: code-review.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 50 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A bedf561c4028
review is a command published in the GitHub repository Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 329 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
test
Run the repository's actual test suite: every ecosystem's canonical runner — NOT run is never green.
audio-pass
Functional audio review for implementation, mix coverage, clarity, and player feedback.
quality-check-command
This command performs comprehensive code quality checks. Use it before commits or when implementation is complete.
auditar-refactor
Invoca refactor-safety-auditor — gate canônico antes de qualquer refactor. Coleta evidências (linhas, contrato externo, coverage, mutation) e retorna veredito GO/BLOCK/WARN/GO-OVERRIDE.
gentle-sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks — writes code following specs and design.
bug-check
Run automated tests and build checks first, then agent code review. For each bug found, propose or document a regression test.