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/VorobiovD/airWrote 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/vorobiovd/air/review-respond)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/vorobiovd/air/review-respond"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vorobiovd/air/review-respond/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/vorobiovd/air/review-respond"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vorobiovd/air/review-respond.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 | $0.06330 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.03165 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00633 |
Grade C, and why
review-respond scanned grade C with 1 finding 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 8d 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.
Recursive force deletehighDestructive command
rm -rf with a variable or a broad path is one typo away from removing the wrong tree.
find /tmp -maxdepth 1 -name 'air-*' -mtime +1 -exec rm -rf {} + 2>/dev/null How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 423 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Respond Flow (--respond mode)
When --respond is passed, this flow automates the developer's side of the review cycle. It reads the existing review, classifies each finding based on local code changes, verifies fixes are correct, runs a self-check on the fix diff, detects additional changes, and posts a structured response that the reviewer's next re-review (Step 6) can parse directly.
Respond Step 0: Initialize Session Temp Directory
Before any /tmp write, mint a per-invocation session dir so parallel /air:review --respond runs (or a respond + concurrent review in two Claude Code sessions) don't overwrite each other's wiki files, diffs, or output comments. Capture the printed path and substitute it into every $AIR_TMP reference downstream.
If the orchestrator already minted $AIR_TMP (e.g. /air:review --respond routed through review.md Step 0), reuse it — don't double-mint. Otherwise mint a fresh dir:
if [ -z "$AIR_TMP" ]; then
find /tmp -maxdepth 1 -name 'air-*' -mtime +1 -exec rm -rf {} + 2>/dev/null
AIR_TMP=$(mktemp -d "/tmp/air-respond-XXXXXX")
fi
echo "$AIR_TMP"
Respond Step 1: Find the review and PR
- Detect the current branch's PR:
PR_NUMBER=$(gh pr view --json number --jq '.number' 2>/dev/null)
If no PR exists: "No open PR found on this branch. Push and create a PR first." and STOP.
- Fetch the review comment (same query as Step 2 in the main review flow).
IMPORTANT: API responses containing comment bodies have markdown with newlines and special characters. Do NOT store the full response in a shell variable — it corrupts control characters. Pipe directly to a parser:
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/issues/$PR_NUMBER/comments 2>/dev/null | python3 -c "
import json, sys
comments = json.loads(sys.stdin.buffer.read())
reviews = [c for c in comments if c['body'].startswith('## Code Review')]
if reviews:
r = reviews[-1]
print(f'ID={r[\"id\"]}')
print(f'CREATED={r[\"created_at\"]}')
lines = r['body'].split('\n')
sha = next((l.split('Reviewed at: ')[1].strip() for l in lines if 'Reviewed at:' in l), 'NOT_FOUND')
print(f'SHA={sha}')
"
Extract:
REVIEW_COMMENT_IDfrom ID= lineREVIEW_COMMENT_CREATEDfrom CREATED= lineREVIEWED_AT_SHAfrom SHA= lineREVIEW_COMMENT_BODY— read from the API response inside the parser, not as a shell variable
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 423 lines · 0 tokens per session scan C 91483731bf3c
review-respond is a command published in the GitHub repository VorobiovD/air (5 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 6,330 tokens. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (recursive force delete). 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-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.
security-review
AI-powered security review of the current git diff (or specified paths). Dispatches the security-reviewer agent and prints findings grouped by severity.