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/review-ats)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/review-ats"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/review-ats/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/review-ats"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/review-ats.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 | $0.00209 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00105 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00042 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
review-ats 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.
What it actually says
Run an ATS / job-match review.
- Load the
token-efficiencyskill. - Query graphify (MCP
query_graph "ats scoring", elsegraphify explain "ats scoring"); then targeted-read the authoritative source (commands/match_resume.rs) anddocs/knowledge/resume-domain.md(ATS section) for context. Stop at ~90% confidence. - Target =
$ARGUMENTSif given, else the currentgit diff. - Spawn only the
job-match-expertsubagent (Task) as Primary Owner. (Secondaryai-provider-expertonly if provider infra changed.) - Report severity-tagged findings (
LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL · file:line · fix); HIGH/CRITICAL block.
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 · 13 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A ac41864c38b4
review-ats is a command published in the GitHub repository saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app (55 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 209 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
quiz-result
Analyze quiz progress over time and the weak areas to study next, from a KMS scores log.
devkit.react.code-review
Provides comprehensive React 19 + Tailwind CSS code review focusing on modern patterns, hooks, Server Components, Actions, performance, accessibility, and Tailwind best practices. Use when reviewing React code changes or before merging pull requests.
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.
cargo-clippy
Command "cargo-clippy" from olorehq/olore, covering cargo-clippy(1), name, description and see also.
rust-critique
Deep code critique — read the target Rust code and apply the full review process. Evaluates soundness, ownership, error handling, type design, async correctness, performance, and architecture. Think like a senior Rust engineer giving honest feedback.
rust-review
Rust code review for ownership, safety, and idiomatic patterns.