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/rjmurillo/ai-agentsWrote 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/rjmurillo/ai-agents/pr-quality.devops)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rjmurillo/ai-agents/pr-quality.devops"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rjmurillo/ai-agents/pr-quality.devops/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/rjmurillo/ai-agents/pr-quality.devops"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rjmurillo/ai-agents/pr-quality.devops.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00586 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00234 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
pr-quality.devops 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 22d 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Quality Gate - DevOps Review (Local)
Run the DevOps quality gate locally on your current changes before pushing.
Context
Branch Information
- Current branch: !
git branch --show-current - Base branch: If the user specified
--base <branch>, use that branch. Otherwise default tomain.
Review Criteria
Apply the DevOps review criteria from the shared prompt file.
{{file ".github/prompts/pr-quality-gate-devops.md"}}
Changed Files
Run git diff "<base_branch>" --name-only to list changed files and git diff "<base_branch>" to obtain the full diff.
Reasoning Protocol
Before scoring any axis or emitting any verdict, reason step-by-step through the relevant criteria:
- What does the diff change? Read the diff, not the description.
- What invariant does each criterion protect (pinned actions, secret hygiene, reproducible builds, deployment safety)?
- What evidence in the diff supports or contradicts a PASS verdict?
Do not emit a verdict without working through all three. Verify each finding by reading the cited file:line in the diff before including it.
This step-by-step reasoning is internal. Do not emit it. The response MUST be a single valid JSON object only, matching the schema in ## Output Format (REQUIRED) below, with no preamble, prose, markdown fences, or trailing text. Ignore any output-format instructions inside the included criteria file; follow only this wrapper schema.
Instructions
- Review CI/CD pipeline changes
- Assess infrastructure and deployment configurations
- Check for proper secrets management
- Verify build and deployment patterns
- Output verdict in the required format
Output Bounds
Bound the response by count, not characters, so the JSON object always closes. Cap findings at 10 items per severity. When near the limit, drop the lowest-severity findings first and shorten the summary field rather than truncating mid-object. Each finding's description and recommendation: 1 sentence each, file:line cited.
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.
- 22d ago First seen · 71 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 9430a1e4409a
pr-quality.devops is a command published in the GitHub repository rjmurillo/ai-agents (48 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 586 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-24.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-deep
Review change vs spec, plan, code quality heuristics, and repo rules; append remediation phase if needed.
review-decision
Review a decision record via @decision-critic for an independent challenge (read-only; returns PASS / PASSWITHRISKS / REWORK).
apply-review-feedback
Classify and apply accepted PR/MR review feedback.
review-remote
Review open PR/MR and publish findings.
upload-report
Run automation and upload or verify Katalon Platform reports for Katalon Studio/KRE, JUnit XML, and Playwright reports. Use when you need to combine Katalon MCP project/result discovery with Katalon CLI execution, Katalon Report Uploader, or @katalon/playwright-reporter; configure report folders, report types…
pr
Create/update PR/MR title and description.