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/review-module.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/review-module.skeleton)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/varienos/agentic-workflow/review-module.skeleton"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/varienos/agentic-workflow/review-module.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/review-module.skeleton"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/varienos/agentic-workflow/review-module.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 | $0.03230 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01292 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00646 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00323 |
Grade A, and why
review-module.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 24d 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 — 405 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Module — Deep Module Review
Deeply reviews a specific module/feature across all layers, finds issues, fixes simple ones, and records complex ones in the backlog. Usage:
/review-module <module_name>,/review-module auth,/review-module payments
Rule: WORK AUTONOMOUSLY
- Do NOT ask the user questions — determine the module, review, and report.
- Fix simple issues (typo, missing import, wrong type, unused variable) DIRECTLY.
- RECORD complex issues (architectural change, new feature, large refactor) in the backlog.
- RUN every step — do not skip a step.
Step 1 — Module Detection and Scope
Map the user-provided module name to files in the codebase.
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.
- 24d ago Changed · +12 lines 56a01d24e3ce
- 1mo ago First seen · 393 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8eaa36fe3979
review-module.skeleton is a command published in the GitHub repository varienos/agentic-workflow (59 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 3,230 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.
pr-enhance
Command "pr-enhance" from ruvnet/ruflo, covering pr-enhance, usage, options, examples and enhance pr.
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.
rev
Invoke Code Reviewer for code quality, security, requirements validation, and best practices review.