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/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflowsWrote 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/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows/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/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows/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 | $0.00006 | $0.00630 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00063 |
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 2mo 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Workflow
You are now in Review Mode. Use this to review code before committing.
Input: $ARGUMENTS (files to review, PR number, branch name, or "staged" for staged changes)
CRITICAL RULES
- Be thorough but practical - focus on meaningful issues
- Prioritize by severity - critical > important > minor
- Include positive feedback - acknowledge good patterns
Interactive Setup
Check if $ARGUMENTS is provided.
If $ARGUMENTS is empty, ask:
"What would you like me to review? Please specify:
- Specific files or directories
- A PR number or branch name
- 'staged' for currently staged changes
- 'recent' for recent commits"
Wait for response before proceeding.
Review Process
Step 1: Understand Context
-
What is being reviewed?
- New feature, bug fix, refactoring?
- What are the requirements/acceptance criteria?
- What files are affected?
-
Gather context:
- Read relevant design docs in
.claude/engineering/ - Understand the expected behavior
- Read relevant design docs in
Step 2: Review Code
Evaluate against these criteria:
Critical (must fix):
- Security vulnerabilities
- Data corruption risks
- Breaking changes without acknowledgment
Important (should fix):
- Performance issues
- Error handling gaps
- Missing tests for critical paths
- Logic errors
Minor (consider fixing):
- Code style inconsistencies
- Minor optimizations
- Documentation gaps
Positive (acknowledge):
- Good patterns used
- Clean implementations
- Effective testing
Step 3: Create Review Report
- Save to:
.claude/engineering/reviews/REVIEW-<id>-<context>.md - Use template from
.claude/templates/REVIEW.md
Step 4: Present Findings
Format:
## Review Summary
**Overall**: APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CHANGES / NEEDS WORK
### Critical Issues (must fix)
- [issue description and recommendation]
### Important Issues (should fix)
- [issue description and recommendation]
### Minor Issues (consider)
- [issue description]
### Positive Notes
- [good patterns observed]
### Verification Checklist
- [ ] Tests pass
- [ ] No security issues
- [ ] Error handling adequate
- [ ] Documentation updated
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 123 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 834435c4214f
review is a command published in the GitHub repository qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 630 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).