Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to richardthe3rd/cambridge-beer-festival-app. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/richardthe3rd/cambridge-beer-festival-app/main/.claude/commands/address-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/richardthe3rd/cambridge-beer-festival-appWrote 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/richardthe3rd/cambridge-beer-festival-app/address-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/richardthe3rd/cambridge-beer-festival-app/address-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/richardthe3rd/cambridge-beer-festival-app/address-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/richardthe3rd/cambridge-beer-festival-app/address-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/richardthe3rd/cambridge-beer-festival-app/address-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 | $0.00015 | $0.00537 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
address-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 12d 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 — 44 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Address Review Findings
Triage review comments on one or more PRs and spawn fixup agents for actionable findings.
Usage: /address-review fix/270-partial-fetch-failures fix/324-connectivity-failure-detection
Or just: /address-review to triage all open PRs being watched in this session.
Steps
For each branch / PR:
- Fetch review threads via
mcp__github__pull_request_read(method:get_review_comments). Each thread carriesisResolved/isOutdatedflags — skip threads already resolved or outdated; they need no action. - Check current CI status via
mcp__github__pull_request_read(method:get_check_runs) before evaluating any comment. - Triage each comment:
- Fix — correct finding, confined to the PR's allowed files, clear how to resolve
- Skip — contradicted by passing CI, factually wrong, out of scope, or pure style preference
- Ask — ambiguous interpretation or architecturally significant change
- Spawn one haiku agent per Fix item (or group related fixes on the same branch into one agent) with
isolation: "worktree". - Surface Ask items to the user with enough context to answer without scrolling.
- Do not post GitHub replies to skip items unless the comment is factually wrong in a way that could mislead other reviewers.
Triage principles
The shared triage facts live in AGENTS.md — consult them before evaluating any comment:
- CI and Coverage — CI is ground truth; coverage warnings are informational unless
codecov/patchitself fails; pure refactors inherit prior coverage. - Dart / Flutter Type Facts and Proto / AIP Design Facts — verify subtype/annotation claims; internal conditional-import stubs don't belong in barrel exports.
Automated reviewers are frequently wrong about type hierarchies and "won't compile" claims when CI is green. When in doubt, trust the analyzer over the comment.
Fixup agent constraints
Each agent must:
- Work only on files within the branch's original allowed-file manifest
- Run
./bin/mise run checkbefore committing - Use conventional commit format:
fix(<scope>): <subject> - Push to the existing fix branch (not a new branch)
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 44 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 2ce8c98319e9
address-review is a command published in the GitHub repository richardthe3rd/cambridge-beer-festival-app (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 537 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.