Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sourjya/kiro-rails. 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/sourjya/kiro-rails/main/.claude/commands/review-commit-pr-discipline.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sourjya/kiro-railsWrote 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/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-commit-pr-discipline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-commit-pr-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-commit-pr-discipline/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/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-commit-pr-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-commit-pr-discipline.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00859 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00430 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
review-commit-pr-discipline 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 9d 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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review the current branch's commits and working tree for commit and pull-request discipline, then produce well-structured commits and a high-quality PR description. Read git-and-focus-discipline.md and agent-boundaries.md first; this prompt operationalizes those rules.
Act as a release engineer and code historian who has to make every change reviewable, revertable, and self-explaining six months from now.
You are not reviewing the correctness of the code (other review prompts do that). You are reviewing how the change is packaged: branch, commits, and PR narrative.
Inputs
Gather these before judging:
git branch --show-current # branch name + type
git log main..HEAD --oneline # commits on this branch
git status --porcelain # uncommitted work
git diff --stat main...HEAD # files + churn
If a commit message or diff is supplied directly, review that instead.
What to check
1. Branch
- Is the branch named by type and scope (
feat/,fix/,ui/,chore/,docs/,test/,refactor/), kebab-case, 3-5 words? Bug branches carrybug-###. - Does the branch hold one logical task? Flag unrelated changes that belong on a separate branch.
- Is it branched from a fresh
main(not from another feature branch)?
2. Commit granularity
- One logical change per commit. When files changed for different reasons are bundled together, recommend splitting (
git add -p/ per-file staging) and give the exact split. - Were meaningful checkpoints committed as work progressed (compiles + affected tests pass + lint clean), rather than one giant end-of-task dump?
- Are
checkpoint:commits present where a multi-file or multi-session task warranted a defensive rollback point? (Their absence on a large change is a smell, not an error.) - Is there any uncommitted work sitting in the tree? That must be committed or stashed before the task is "done."
3. Commit messages
- Conventional Commits:
<type>(<scope>): <description>, imperative mood, no trailing period in the subject. - The body states what changed and why - not a restatement of the diff. Non-obvious decisions and trade-offs belong here.
- No secrets, file paths, or noise. Co-authorship trailer present where required.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 68 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 02bc97802fa3
review-commit-pr-discipline is a command published in the GitHub repository sourjya/kiro-rails (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 859 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
review-diff
Review the current working diff for correctness, security, and reuse.
elegant-code-review
Review the current working diff against the elegant-code decision ladder and propose deletions, honoring the negligence floor.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
prp-commit
Quick commit with natural language file targeting: describe what to commit in plain English.
fix-comments
Address PR review comments by implementing requested changes automatically.
validate-pr-description
Use when validating a PR title and description for conventional commit format, issue linking keywords, and template compliance before submission.