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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/fix-bug)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/fix-bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/fix-bug/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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/fix-bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/fix-bug.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00226 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00113 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
fix-bug 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 10d 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
Fix: $ARGUMENTS
- Load
review-workflow+token-efficiency. - Reproduce / locate — graphify-scope to the failing area; read the authoritative source. Stop at ~90% confidence.
- Root cause — state it in one line before editing.
- Minimal fix on a feature branch — change the cause, not the symptom; no scope creep.
- Regression test (if
touchesTestableLogic):test-authoradds a failing-then-passing test →testing-revieweraudits. - Review — Primary Owner of the area (+ Secondary on risk, ≤3 reviewers); HIGH/CRITICAL block.
- Verify the fix (run the test/build); docs/lessons via
project-stewardif the cause is a durable lesson. - Open a PR.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 16 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 886ad796fd7e
fix-bug is a command published in the GitHub repository saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app (54 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 226 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
codebase-review
Review an entire codebase for architecture, engineering health, and exploitable risk; generate a prioritized remediation plan, an evidence-anchored system knowledge document, or both.
bugfix
TDD-driven bugfix workflow: tester writes failing test (RED) → developer fixes (GREEN) → developer refactors (REFACTOR) → reviewer validates. Accepts issue number, description, or both. Auto-creates PR unless --no-pr flag is passed.
fec-tdd
Use front-end TDD workflow to implement functions, fix bugs, or refactor logic: first write failing tests, then implement minimal code, and then refactor.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.