Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saitarrun/Devforge-ainpx agentmods add commands/saitarrun/devforge-ai/to-issuesWrote 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/saitarrun/devforge-ai/to-issues)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/saitarrun/devforge-ai/to-issues"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saitarrun/devforge-ai/to-issues/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/saitarrun/devforge-ai/to-issues"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saitarrun/devforge-ai/to-issues.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 | $0.00040 | $0.01053 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00421 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
to-issues 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 1mo 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 — 145 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/to-issues — Create issues from scope.json slices
Reads ./projects/<feature-name>/scope.json (and optionally docs/01-prd.md) and creates one Linear issue per slice. Updates scope.json with linear_id on each slice after creation.
Usage
/to-issues "login-page"
/to-issues "reporting-dashboard"
The <feature-name> must match the directory under ./projects/.
EXECUTION
STEP 1: Read artifacts
- Read
./projects/<feature-name>/scope.json - Read
./projects/<feature-name>/docs/01-prd.mdif it exists (used for issue descriptions) - Read
./projects/<feature-name>/grill-summary.mdif it exists (used for acceptance criteria)
If scope.json is missing, halt:
❌ scope.json not found at ./projects/<feature-name>/scope.json
Run /sdlc-plan or /to-prd first to generate scope.json.
If slices already have linear_id set, warn the user:
⚠️ Some slices already have linear_id set:
slice-0 → SAI-XX
slice-1 → SAI-XX
Proceeding will create NEW issues for all slices and overwrite linear_id.
Reply "yes" to continue or "no" to abort.
STEP 2: Create issues
If Linear MCP is available:
For each slice in scope.json:
- Create a Linear issue with:
- Title: slice
name - Labels:
prefactor(if type = prefactor) orfeature(if type = feature) - Description (Markdown):
## Slice: [slice id] — [slice name] **Type**: [prefactor | feature] **Layers**: [comma-separated layers] ## Context [Summary from grill-summary.md or 01-prd.md scoped to this slice — what the user should be able to do when this slice is complete] ## Acceptance Criteria - [ ] [layer: schema] Database schema migrated and seeded - [ ] [layer: api] Endpoint(s) implemented and returning correct responses - [ ] [layer: ui] UI component(s) implemented matching ux-design.md specs - [ ] [layer: tests] Unit + integration tests written with >80% coverage - [ ] typecheck passes - [ ] slice tests pass (Only include rows for layers listed in this slice's layers array)
- Title: slice
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 145 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A de9cfa790b38
to-issues is a command published in the GitHub repository saitarrun/Devforge-ai (4 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,053 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
poam-review
Review and manage Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M).
g-forge
G-Forge workflow commands. Subcommands — help, status, resume, doctor, audit, init, kickoff, onboard, brief, roadmap, intake, plan, forecast, blast-radius, execute, review, doc-review, align, afk, specialize, update, skill-design, skill-validate, adr, docs, wiki, patterns, telemetry, identity, retro, listen, optimize…
apply
name: OpenSpec: Apply description: Implement an approved OpenSpec change and keep tasks in sync. category: OpenSpec tags: [openspec, apply].
multi-repo-swarm
Coordinate AI swarms across multiple repositories, enabling organization-wide automation and intelligent cross-project collaboration.
repo-architect
Repository structure optimization and multi-repo management with ruv-swarm coordination for scalable project architecture and development workflows.
swarm-issue
Transform GitHub Issues into intelligent swarm tasks, enabling automatic task decomposition and agent coordination.