Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to saffron-health/opencode-gui. 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/saffron-health/opencode-gui/main/.agents/commands/address_review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saffron-health/opencode-guiWrote 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/saffron-health/opencode-gui/address_review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/saffron-health/opencode-gui/address_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saffron-health/opencode-gui/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/saffron-health/opencode-gui/address_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saffron-health/opencode-gui/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00424 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00170 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00042 |
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 2mo 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
Address PR review comments systematically.
Process
-
Get review comments: Use
gh api graphqlto fetch all review threads and comments for the PR. (If a PR number is not provided in the input, look up the PR for the current branch). -
Analyze comments: Review all the feedback to understand what changes are needed
-
Address each comment systematically: For each review comment:
- Make the requested code changes
- Verify the changes fix the issue raised
- Add explanatory comments if the reviewer requested clarification
- Test changes to ensure they don't break existing functionality
-
Quality assurance: Run type-check, build, and lint to ensure all changes are correct
-
Commit and push: Stage and commit all changes with an appropriate message and push.
-
Mark comments resolved: Query PR review threads with
gh api graphqlto get thread IDs and outdated status. Resolve all addressed threads usingmutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }. Always resolve outdated threads.
Implementation Pattern
// Query review threads:
gh api graphql -f query='query { repository(owner: "owner", name: "repo") { pullRequest(number: N) { reviewThreads(first: 100) { nodes { id isResolved isOutdated comments { nodes { body } } } } } } }'
// Resolve thread:
gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }'
Notes
- Only address reviews from human users; ignore bot reviews (e.g., Claude) unless explicitly requested
- Use sub-agents to handle independent review comments in parallel when possible
- Always verify changes don't introduce new issues
- If a review comment requires clarification, document the approach taken
- Focus on the specific issues raised rather than making additional changes
- Mark outdated comments as resolved automatically since they no longer apply to current code
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 39 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A fc7050e1adad
address_review is a command published in the GitHub repository saffron-health/opencode-gui (58 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 424 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
speckit.spex.submit
Push and create PR for team review, with optional watch mode for CI monitoring.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
factory
Linha de montagem multi-agente (Software Factory) — spec-writer → builder em worktree isolado → 4 revisores paralelos (Security, Code, UI, UX) → approver com gate de risco e dashboard visual.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
release-tag
Create and push a version tag after a release PR has been merged.