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/yashs33244/the_y_coding_standardWrote 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/yashs33244/the_y_coding_standard/y-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/yashs33244/the_y_coding_standard/y-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yashs33244/the_y_coding_standard/y-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/yashs33244/the_y_coding_standard/y-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yashs33244/the_y_coding_standard/y-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 | $0.00138 | $0.01642 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00069 | $0.00821 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00164 |
Grade A, and why
y-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 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.
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 — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/y-review
The "Did we build it?" gate. Step 05 of the Sprint Loop. After /y-build finishes you stop and ask: does the code on disk actually match the locked plan, and does it meet the_y_coding_standard? This command answers both. Plan compliance first, standards second, OOP third, tests fourth. Every finding gets a severity label and a file:line pointer. The output is a written report at findings/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md and a one-screen summary with a ship/hold recommendation.
Pre-flight
Before reviewing, confirm:
- We are in a git repo. If not, abort and tell the user to initialize one.
- There is an active plan in
plans/. If none, ask the user which plan this code implements. If they say "no plan", that is itself a P0 finding (we shipped without a plan). - Today's date is known. Use it to name the findings file.
- The
findings/folder exists. If not, create it.
Ask the user once: "Reviewing uncommitted changes, current branch vs main, or a specific path?" Default to current branch vs main if the user does not answer.
Workflow
1. Identify the diff scope
Run one of:
git difffor uncommitted changes.git diff main...HEADfor current branch vs main.git diff <ref>...HEAD -- <path>for a scoped path.
Capture the file list. If the diff is empty, stop and report "Nothing to review."
2. Locate the active plan
Look in plans/ for the most recent plan file or the one the user pointed to. Read it. Extract:
- The stated scope (what we said we would build).
- The acceptance criteria (how we said we would know it works).
- The out-of-scope list (what we said we would NOT touch).
If the plan is missing or status is not ready-to-ship or in-progress, flag this in the report.
3. Load the right reference
Based on the files in the diff:
- Any
.pyfiles: readreferences/python.md. - Any
.tsx,.jsx,.ts,.jsin a React/Next.js project: readreferences/react-nextjs.md. - Any class definitions touched: read
references/oop.md. - Folder structure changes (new top-level dirs, moved modules): read
references/project-scaffold.md.
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 · 163 lines · 138 tokens per session scan A 46b17954a4c3
y-review is a command published in the GitHub repository yashs33244/the_y_coding_standard (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 138 tokens to every session and 1,642 once invoked, about $0.0007 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.
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.