Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sanmak/specops. 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/sanmak/specops/main/.claude/commands/pre-pr.mdgit 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/pre-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sanmak/specops/pre-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sanmak/specops/pre-pr/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/sanmak/specops/pre-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sanmak/specops/pre-pr.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 | $0.01213 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00485 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00243 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
pre-pr 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 — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run a comprehensive pre-PR quality gate that chains existing quality tools into a single check. This catches issues that code review bots (CodeRabbit, Copilot, Greptile) would flag, reducing PR review noise by ~62%.
Instructions
Follow these steps precisely. Do not skip any step.
Step 1: Run /core-review on current changes
Run the /core-review command with the current argument to check all uncommitted changes against SpecOps-specific patterns.
This catches ~40% of issues that bots would flag:
- P0: Raw abstract operations in generated outputs, detached HEAD patterns
- P1: Generated file edits, cross-platform marker gaps, variable inconsistency, missing checksums
- P2: Security-sensitive file advisories, spec alignment, step reference errors
- P3: EARS notation, empty sections, malformed checkboxes
If P0 or P1 findings exist, offer to auto-fix them before continuing.
Save the /core-review result summary (pass/fail, finding counts by severity) as CORE_REVIEW_RESULT.
Step 2: Run automated validation battery
Run these checks sequentially. Record each result.
2a. Platform validation:
python3 generator/validate.py
Save exit code as VALIDATE_RESULT (0 = PASS, non-zero = FAIL).
2b. Spec artifact lint:
bash scripts/lint-specs.sh
Save exit code as LINT_RESULT (0 = PASS, non-zero = FAIL).
2c. Checksum verification:
shasum -a 256 -c CHECKSUMS.sha256
Save exit code as CHECKSUMS_RESULT (0 = PASS, non-zero = FAIL).
2d. Full test suite:
bash scripts/run-tests.sh
Save exit code as TESTS_RESULT (0 = PASS, non-zero = FAIL).
2e. IssueID verification (when taskTracking configured):
Read .specops.json and check team.taskTracking. If taskTracking is not "none":
- Resolve
specsDirfrom.specops.json(specsDir, default.specops), then read<specsDir>/index.json(or scan<specsDir>/*/spec.json) to find specs with statusimplementingorcompleted - For each such spec, read its
tasks.mdand find all tasks with**Priority:** Highor**Priority:** Medium - Check that each eligible task has
**IssueID:**set to a valid identifier (notNone, not empty) - If any eligible tasks have missing IssueIDs, set
ISSUEID_RESULTtoFAILand list the affected spec + task names
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 · 138 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 77ef3c8c5253
pre-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository sanmak/specops (49 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,213 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
skill-creator
Create or update an OpenCode skill using the bundled skill-creator workflow.
skill-registry
Rebuild the OpenCode skill registry for the current project and installed skills.
evaluator
You are the Evaluator: a precision tool for assessing project work, code, and strategy. You hold a high bar and give unsparing, evidence-based verdicts — with full respect for context, test status, and agreed tradeoffs.
octo-deliver
Delivery phase - Review, validate, and test with multi-AI quality assurance.
testgen-flow-data-collection
Phase 1 Data Collection of testgen-flow.
testgen-flow-gap-and-contradiction-analysis
Phase 2 Gap & Contradiction Analysis of testgen-flow.