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/tattooinmtl/BlenderMCP_DominatorWrote 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/tattooinmtl/blendermcp_dominator/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/tattooinmtl/blendermcp_dominator/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tattooinmtl/blendermcp_dominator/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/tattooinmtl/blendermcp_dominator/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tattooinmtl/blendermcp_dominator/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 | $0.00576 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00288 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00058 |
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 11d 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Workflow
Perform a thorough code review focused on real issues.
Scope
$ARGUMENTS
- If "staged" -> Review staged changes:
git diff --cached - If "branch" -> Review branch changes:
git diff main...HEAD - If file paths -> Review those specific files
- If empty -> Review all uncommitted changes:
git diff
Step 1: Get Changes
# Choose based on scope
git diff --cached # staged
git diff main...HEAD # branch
git diff # uncommitted
Step 2: Review for Issues
Bug Detection (High Priority)
- Logic errors in game mechanics
- State synchronization issues
- Pathfinding edge cases
- Resource calculation errors
- Off-by-one in grid operations
Security/Anti-Cheat (Critical)
- Client trust violations (trusting client-calculated values)
- Missing server validation
- Race conditions in state updates
- Exploitable timing windows
- Resource manipulation vulnerabilities
Game-Specific Issues
- Depth sorting problems in isometric rendering
- Memory leaks (unit pooling, event listeners)
- Performance in hot paths (pathfinding, rendering loops)
- Missing collision checks
- Incorrect coordinate transformations
Code Quality
- Missing error handling for network failures
- Code that will be difficult to maintain
- Performance issues at scale (100+ units)
- Missing validation at trust boundaries
Step 3: Rate Confidence
For each issue found:
- 80-100% confidence -> REPORT
- 50-79% -> Only mention if significant
- Below 50% -> DO NOT REPORT
Step 4: Output Report
## Code Review Results
### Critical Issues
**[CRITICAL]** src/path/file.ts:123
Issue: <description>
Confidence: 95%
Category: Anti-Cheat
Fix: <specific suggestion>
### Important Issues
**[IMPORTANT]** src/path/file.ts:456
Issue: <description>
Confidence: 85%
Category: Bug
Fix: <specific suggestion>
### Summary
- Files reviewed: X
- Critical issues: Y
- Important issues: Z
- Recommendation: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 103 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A d02fe308fd25
review is a command published in the GitHub repository tattooinmtl/BlenderMCP_Dominator (0 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 576 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ 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.