Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/varienos/agentic-workflownpx agentmods add commands/varienos/agentic-workflow/bug-review.skeletonWrote 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/varienos/agentic-workflow/bug-review.skeleton)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/varienos/agentic-workflow/bug-review.skeleton"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/varienos/agentic-workflow/bug-review.skeleton/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/varienos/agentic-workflow/bug-review.skeleton"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/varienos/agentic-workflow/bug-review.skeleton.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 | $0.02490 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00996 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00498 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00249 |
Grade A, and why
bug-review.skeleton 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 27d 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 — 301 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Bug Review — Quality Control for Fix Commit
View bug fix commit in three perspectives: code quality, silent errors, and regression risk. Usage:
/bug-review,/bug-review <commit_hash>,/bug-review HEAD~2..HEAD
Step 1 — Extract Diff
1.1 — Argument Resolution
| Input | Action |
|---|---|
| Empty | Son commit: cd ../Codebase && git diff HEAD~1..HEAD |
| Commit hash | Belirtilen commit: cd ../Codebase && git show <hash> |
| Range | Aralik: cd ../Codebase && git diff <range> |
1.2 — Diff Analysis
Diff output:
- List of changed files
- Added/removed lines in each file
- Change history (update, test, config)
- Bug fix-specific: which lines were added for "fix", which for "test"?
Rule: Don't say "There are no changes to be made" and just wait.
Step 2 — 3 Agent Spawn
Train each of the three agents in parallel.
Agent 1 — Code Reviewer (Bug Fix Perspective)
Task: Verify the quality and correctness of bug fixes.
Bug Fix Control List (Fixed Framework):
- Why was this change made? Was it a fix or just a cosmetic change?
- Was it a minimal change? Was it just a single line change or a full refactor?
- Are there similar issues elsewhere? Are there similar patterns in other files?
- Has the regression test been written? Has a test been written to verify that the fix doesn't introduce new errors?
- Is there any side effect? Does the change break any existing functionality?
- Is error handling adequate? Are try-catch blocks, error boundaries, and null checks sufficient?
- Have edge cases been considered? Have we considered edge cases such as null values, empty arrays, concurrent access?
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.
- 27d ago Changed · +39 lines 02b1160d325d
- 1mo ago First seen · 262 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 50dab130eb70
bug-review.skeleton is a command published in the GitHub repository varienos/agentic-workflow (59 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,490 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-pr
PR review using parallel specialized agents for code quality, security, testing, architecture, and performance analysis. Synthesizes findings into a review report with conventional comments (praise/issue/suggestion/nitpick) and approve or request-changes verdict. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting security…
review
A command for reviewing code with security checks and a check for compliance with MX tags. The available description does not explain what MX tags are.
review-decide
Resolve a circuit breaker in the review loop. Accepts exactly one argument: approve, reject, or retry.
gh-security-review
Use to perform a dedicated security review of current branch changes before pushing.
fe
Invoke Frontend Developer for React, TypeScript, Next.js, and React Native development.
arch
Invoke Solution Architect for system design, architecture decisions, patterns, and ADRs.