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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflowsWrote 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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/implement-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/implement-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/implement-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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/implement-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/implement-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 | $0.00021 | $0.00714 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00286 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
implement-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 14d 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Workflow: Implement + Verified Review
The default per-task loop separates implementation from the decision that the
work is complete. Use focus for execution, simplify for unnecessary
complexity, and an independent reviewer for the acceptance gate. Follow the
project's task store and runtime capabilities.
Inputs
| Input | Source | Description |
|---|---|---|
task |
caller | Tracker ID or written description with acceptance criteria. |
base_ref |
project | Agreed comparison base for the complete change. |
test_command |
project | Existing verification command; if absent, determine appropriate checks from the repository and task. |
1. Establish acceptance and ownership
Read the task, dependencies, prior attempts, and project instructions. Confirm what must hold before closure and where the change must land. Claim tracked work before editing. Use Beads when choosing a new durable tracker; preserve an existing authoritative tracker.
2. Implement and verify
Run focus with --no-close so the outer gate owns closure. Reuse the review
and verification evidence produced there rather than launching a duplicate
panel. Add regression tests with fixes and property tests for relevant pure
logic. Execute the project's checks and exercise changed behavior.
An empty test command is not permission to skip verification. For documentation or configuration, use appropriate render, link, schema, or structural checks. Record unavailable checks as gaps and resolve gaps that block acceptance.
3. Simplify the integrated change
Run simplify on the complete diff. Remove unnecessary structure without
changing required behavior. Re-run affected checks after edits. Keep tests with
their fixes; a separate simplification commit is useful only when it improves
reviewability.
4. Independent acceptance gate
Use the code-reviewer role and code-review procedure. The reviewer did not
write the change: give it the task, comparison base, current working-tree state,
acceptance criteria, and explicit commands to run. Include uncommitted changes
in the review when present. Apply the Agent Collaboration review-panel size;
one coordinated review of the integrated result is the default.
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.
- 14d ago Changed · -29 lines · +1 tokens per session 9b7369c4c4ae
- 1mo ago First seen · 104 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A ea341a6e83e0
implement-review is a command published in the GitHub repository sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows (6 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 714 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
critique
Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says "what's wrong with this UI", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation.
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
devkit.react.code-review
Provides comprehensive React 19 + Tailwind CSS code review focusing on modern patterns, hooks, Server Components, Actions, performance, accessibility, and Tailwind best practices. Use when reviewing React code changes or before merging pull requests.
fix-comments
Address PR review comments by implementing requested changes automatically.
review-open-prs
Command "review-open-prs" from The-Artificer-of-Ciphers-LLC/skills-from-the-artificer, covering batch pr review directive — all open prs i did not author, phase a — enumerate target prs & build the queue, phase b — per-pr directive (runs once per queued $pr), 0. context anchoring and 1. preconditions.
review
A command that reviews code changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.