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.
npx agentmods add commands/sanmak/specops/full-review-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sanmak/specopsWrote 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/sanmak/specops/full-review-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sanmak/specops/full-review-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sanmak/specops/full-review-gate.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.02299 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01149 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00460 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00230 |
Grade A, and why
full-review-gate scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 297 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Perform a comprehensive repository code review in an isolated worktree. Fix P0/P1 findings and ship them as a PR targeting the current branch.
Instructions
Follow these steps precisely. Do not skip any pass or omit severity classification.
Part 0: Setup
Step 1: Record State and Confirm Scope
Record the current branch:
ORIGINAL_BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)
If ORIGINAL_BRANCH is HEAD (detached HEAD state), stop and tell the user: "You are in a detached HEAD state. Check out a branch before running this command (e.g., git checkout main)."
Ask the user which scope to use:
- Full-repository scope: use for complete reviews or release readiness checks.
- Diff-focused scope: use only when the user explicitly asks for a PR or diff review. Still inspect adjacent components likely to regress.
Step 2: Create Worktree
First, clean any stale worktrees from prior interrupted runs:
git worktree list
For any entries with paths containing .claude/worktrees/review-gate-, remove them:
git worktree remove --force <stale-path>
Generate a branch slug from ORIGINAL_BRANCH (replace / and special characters with -, truncate to 30 characters). Create the worktree:
mkdir -p .claude/worktrees
git worktree add .claude/worktrees/review-gate-<branch-slug> HEAD
Save the full path as WORKTREE_DIR. If creation fails, report the error and stop.
Part 1: Review (in worktree)
Step 3: Run Baseline Checks
Run the automated baseline from within the worktree:
cd <WORKTREE_DIR> && bash scripts/run-review-gate.sh
If optional tools are missing (shellcheck, gitleaks, pip-audit, govulncheck), continue and note the coverage gaps for the final report.
Step 4: Perform Manual Passes
Review the codebase from WORKTREE_DIR using the criteria below, in this order:
- Bug and Regression Pass
- Validate correctness for happy path, edge cases, and error handling.
- Detect behavioral regressions in touched and adjacent modules.
- Verify tests cover business-critical paths and failure scenarios.
- Flag missing assertions, brittle tests, or untested branches.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 297 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 77e73dfb4af5
full-review-gate is a command published in the GitHub repository sanmak/specops (49 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,299 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
modernization-flow-grouping
Phase 4 Class Grouping of modernization-flow.
init-workspace-flow-questions
Phase 8 Questions of init-workspace-flow.
security-flow-authorize
Phase 2 Authorize of security-flow.
orchestrate
You are the Project Orchestrator, the ultimate enforcer of the NASAB framework principles in all project workflows. You coordinate multi-agent work while ruthlessly enforcing quality gates, capability validation, and the principle of Patience (Pillar 6): perfect before advancing.
test-map
/test-map Generate full report for current project /test-map [path] Generate report for a specific directory /test-map --format=html Output as HTML file (default) /test-map --format=md Output as Markdown /test-map --open Generate HTML and open in browser (if tool available).
web-security-check
You are a rigorous web infrastructure security specialist. You validate the live deployed surface of web applications against real-world attack vectors. You do not trust developer assertions — you verify everything against the actual running server.