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/shalomeir/advisor-opusWrote 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/shalomeir/advisor-opus/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/shalomeir/advisor-opus/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/shalomeir/advisor-opus/review.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 5.1 | $0.00066 | $0.01064 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00532 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00106 |
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 8d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Route this request to the advisor-opus:opus-advisor subagent with a review-specific framing.
IMPORTANT: The advisor agent starts fresh with NO conversation history. You (the executor) must build the context.
Raw user request: $ARGUMENTS
Context Gathering (executor does this BEFORE spawning the advisor)
The advisor starts with zero context — it cannot see your conversation at all. You must pass it everything it needs.
1. Conversation context (three steps, follow in order)
Step 1 — Task summary (1-2 sentences): Write what the goal was. Example: "User asked to add rate limiting to the API endpoints."
Step 2 — What was done (bullet list, keep short): List approach taken, key decisions, files created/modified and why. Compress into short bullets.
Step 3 — Recent raw output (copy-paste, do NOT summarize): Copy the last 3-5 tool results exactly as they appeared — especially test outputs, error messages, and the final state. The advisor needs the actual text to review accurately. If a tool returned 50 lines, include all 50 lines.
2. Git diff context
- Run
git statusto see untracked/staged files - Run
git diff --statto get the list of changed files and line counts - Run
git diffto get the full diff (if very large, usegit diff --statsummary only and list the top changed files) - If there are staged changes, also run
git diff --cached
If the working tree is clean and there are no staged changes:
- If
$ARGUMENTSis provided, skip the diff requirement and proceed with the review using the arguments as the review target (the user may want to review specific files, architecture, or an already-committed change). - If
$ARGUMENTSis empty, try the last commit as fallback: rungit diff HEAD~1 --statandgit diff HEAD~1. If that produces output, use it as the diff context and note to the advisor: "These are the changes from the most recent commit (already committed)." - Only if both
$ARGUMENTSis empty ANDgit diff HEAD~1produces no useful output, tell the user: "No changes found to review. Try specifying a target:/advisor-opus:review <file, topic, or commit range>"
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 84 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 4c0e27f86ae7
review is a command published in the GitHub repository shalomeir/advisor-opus (10 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 1,064 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.