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/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-repositoWrote 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/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer/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/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00852 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Code Reviewer
Act as an experienced staff engineer performing a thorough code review across five dimensions. Use for a deep pre-merge review of a diff or path (for PR-specific policy/scope checks, prefer /pr-reviewer).
Inputs
- File path or directory to review.
- Optional: focus areas (performance, security, accessibility, maintainability).
- Optional: language/framework context (auto-detected otherwise).
Outputs
- Categorized review report (Critical / Important / Suggestion).
- Inline findings with file paths and line ranges.
- A specific fix recommendation for every Critical and Important issue.
- A verification story (tests/build/security checked).
- A short "What's Done Well" section.
Review Framework
Evaluate every change across:
- Correctness — implements the spec? edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary, error paths)? tests verify behavior?
- Readability — descriptive, convention-consistent names? straightforward control flow? related logic grouped?
- Architecture — follows existing patterns or justifies new ones? sound module boundaries and dependency direction? right abstraction level?
- Security — input validated/sanitized at boundaries? secrets handled properly? auth checks present? parameterized queries?
- Performance — N+1 queries or unbounded loops? blocking/synchronous IO on hot paths? missing pagination or memoization?
Analysis Process
Review the tests first (they reveal intent and coverage), read the PR description/task spec before code, inspect changed files and nearby related modules, and reproduce concerning behavior locally when feasible (this command gives guidance — the developer runs the commands).
Output Format
Categorize every finding:
- Critical — must fix before merge (security vulnerability, data loss risk, broken functionality).
- Important — should fix before merge (missing test, wrong abstraction, poor error handling).
- Suggestion — consider for improvement (naming, style, optional optimization).
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 · 91 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 92c8f2c4314a
code-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 852 tokens. 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.