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/sigistry/marketplaceWrote 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/sigistry/marketplace/workflow-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sigistry/marketplace/workflow-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sigistry/marketplace/workflow-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/sigistry/marketplace/workflow-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sigistry/marketplace/workflow-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 | $0.00012 | $0.00688 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00344 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
workflow-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 — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a GitHub Actions workflow for SECURITY and SPEED before it causes an incident or a slow, expensive pipeline. Use this on new or changed workflows, or as a periodic audit. $ARGUMENTS is the workflow file to review; if omitted, review every file under .github/workflows/.
Process
Step 1: Load the workflow(s)
- Read the file named in
$ARGUMENTS, or glob.github/workflows/*.ymland*.yaml. - Note each
job, itsruns-on,permissions,concurrency,timeout-minutes, and everyuses:action reference andrun:step.
Step 2: Audit for security
Draw on the gha-failure-taxonomy skill's permissions-and-secrets.md reference. Check:
| Check | Risk if violated |
|---|---|
| Actions pinned to a commit SHA | @main/@v4 tags are mutable, supply-chain / tag-hijack risk |
Least-privilege permissions: |
default is often too broad; write scope enables token abuse |
pull_request_target usage |
runs with secrets against untrusted PR code, RCE / secret exfil |
Secrets not echoed / interpolated into run: |
secrets printed to logs bypass masking |
No run: ${{ ... }} of untrusted input |
script injection via PR title/body/branch name |
| OIDC over long-lived cloud keys | static keys leak and never rotate |
Step 3: Audit for speed and cost
| Check | Waste if missing |
|---|---|
Dependency caching (actions/cache / setup-* cache) |
cold installs every run |
concurrency with cancel-in-progress |
stale runs burn minutes on superseded commits |
timeout-minutes per job |
hung jobs run to the 6-hour default cap |
Parallelizable jobs not serialized by needless needs: |
wall-clock time inflated |
fail-fast / matrix sized correctly |
redundant or over-broad matrix legs |
| Path/branch filters scope the triggers | workflow runs on irrelevant changes |
Step 4: Report
Produce a findings table ordered by severity, then corrected snippets:
| Severity | Finding | Location (file:line) |
Fix |
|---|
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 · 50 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 5940900cb81a
workflow-review is a command published in the GitHub repository sigistry/marketplace (3 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 688 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
pipeline
Add and validate CI/CD workflows one bundle at a time.
typescript-dev
Start TypeScript development workflow with architecture, implementation, review, and testing phases.
graduate
Graduate a Lovable / Bolt / v0 export to GitHub Actions + a non-platform deploy target via the Starter Series 5-step path. Orchestrates the three audit MCP tools and surfaces lift-in steps for the matching starter.
audit-security
Check baseline CI security hygiene against the Starter Series bar — gitleaks, CodeQL, dep audit, license check, --ignore-scripts, Dependabot grouped, secret-scanning, claude-code-security-review, claude-security-guidance. Read-only, complementary to Anthropic's in-session security guidance plugin.
compliance-fix
Show Qualimetry review findings for a file and apply the standards-compliant fix.
f5-checkpoint
This command has been consolidated into /f5-ctx.