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/SarutobiSasuke8/agentops-templateWrote 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/sarutobisasuke8/agentops-template/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sarutobisasuke8/agentops-template/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sarutobisasuke8/agentops-template/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/sarutobisasuke8/agentops-template/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sarutobisasuke8/agentops-template/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 | $0.00010 | $0.00276 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00110 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00055 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
What it actually says
Identify what to review: git diff for uncommitted work, otherwise git diff HEAD~1 (or the range the user named).
Launch the code-reviewer and qa-acceptance-tester subagents in parallel (one message, two Task calls). Give each: the diff scope, the goal of the change as you understand it, and a request for findings ordered by severity. The subagents load their persona definitions themselves and cannot see this conversation, so the prompt must be self-contained.
If subagents are unavailable, read personas/code-reviewer-maintainability.md and personas/qa-acceptance-tester.md (check personas/optional/ if not in personas/) and apply both lenses in-context.
Synthesize the two reports into one review:
- Correctness risks — logic errors, edge cases, silent failures
- Missing states — loading, empty, error states that affect the experience
- Acceptance gaps — user-visible behavior that isn't yet met
- Follow-up items — things worth fixing that are outside the current change
Do not rewrite code unless the user asks. Surface findings only. If changes look solid, say so clearly.
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 · 19 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 15d316afa941
review is a command published in the GitHub repository SarutobiSasuke8/agentops-template (9 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 276 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.
parallel-analyze
Multi-perspective analysis using parallel subagents. Analyzes code from architecture, security, performance, and testing viewpoints simultaneously.
parallel-review
Run parallel code review across multiple directories or files. Uses N subagents simultaneously for faster analysis.
review
A command for reviewing code with security checks and a check for compliance with MX tags. The available description does not explain what MX tags are.
pr-enhance
Command "pr-enhance" from ruvnet/ruflo, covering pr-enhance, usage, options, examples and enhance pr.
deep-audit.skeleton
Description: This section is populated by Bootstrap with manifest data. Required manifest fields: project.description, stack.primary, project.structure, project.subprojects, stack.orm, stack.authmethod Example output.