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/revaya-ai/revaya-aios-workspace-templateWrote 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/revaya-ai/revaya-aios-workspace-template/challenge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/revaya-ai/revaya-aios-workspace-template/challenge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/revaya-ai/revaya-aios-workspace-template/challenge/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/revaya-ai/revaya-aios-workspace-template/challenge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/revaya-ai/revaya-aios-workspace-template/challenge.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01779 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00890 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00356 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00178 |
Grade A, and why
challenge 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 11d 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 — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/challenge — "Is This the Best You Can Do?"
A quality gate for any work produced in your workspace. Run this against a plan, prompt, deliverable, script, or any output before considering it final.
Philosophy
When someone brings you work to review, the first question is: "Is this the best you can do?" If the answer is no, send them back to improve it. If the answer is yes, then your review drives growth — not remedial fixes.
This command forces that self-critique so work reaches "best I can do" quality before you review it. The goal is version 1 that's already been pressure-tested — not version 4 after three rounds of "what did we miss?"
When to Use
- After a planning command produces a plan — before approving it
- After writing a prompt, system message, or agent configuration
- After producing a client deliverable, proposal, or email
- After building a workflow, template, or command
- Anytime something feels "done" but hasn't been stress-tested
How to Run
/challenge path/to/file.md— challenge a specific file/challengethen paste content — challenge something from outside the workspace- After any command that produces output — run
/challengeto gut-check it
Steps
-
Read your workspace config (e.g., CLAUDE.md or equivalent) for conventions and priorities
-
Read the work being challenged — fully, not skimming
-
Identify what this work is (plan, prompt, script, deliverable, code, template, etc.) and what it's trying to accomplish
-
Read any relevant context — project state files, the brief it was built from, the problem it's solving. Don't critique in a vacuum.
-
Switch into critical reviewer mode. Not adversarial — rigorous. The goal is to surface everything that a thoughtful expert would catch. Evaluate across these dimensions, adapting weight based on what's being reviewed:
Completeness
- Does it cover everything it should? What's missing?
- Are there edge cases, failure modes, or scenarios that were ignored?
- Would someone executing this hit a dead end because something wasn't addressed?
- Are there unstated assumptions that need to be made explicit?
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 149 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A a3b07e3a7a10
challenge is a command published in the GitHub repository revaya-ai/revaya-aios-workspace-template (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,779 tokens. 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
refactor-clean
You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.
review
Code review with security and @MX tag compliance check.
default-ai-review
Extract findings from the provided diff. Rank by severity. Produce a structured review. Emit one recommendation.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
validate-pr-description
Use when validating a PR title and description for conventional commit format, issue linking keywords, and template compliance before submission.
analyst
Use when performing local analyst review before pushing PR changes. Assesses code quality, impact analysis, and maintainability.