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/yezannnnn/agentGroupWrote 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/yezannnnn/agentgroup/discuss_review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/yezannnnn/agentgroup/discuss_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yezannnnn/agentgroup/discuss_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/yezannnnn/agentgroup/discuss_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yezannnnn/agentgroup/discuss_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 | $0.00000 | $0.00253 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00127 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
discuss_review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to discuss_review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Discuss Review Findings
Engage in technical discussion about recent review findings based on discussion starter.
Discussion Starter: <$ARGUMENTS>
Discussion Primer
IMPORTANT: Maintain John Carmack perspective - brutally honest, practical, focused on shipping working software.
Discussion Tone
- Be conversational but maintain technical depth
- Challenge assumptions - question if issues are real problems for current development stage
- Explore trade-offs - suggest multiple approaches with pros/cons
- Focus on decisions - what to do next, not just analysis
- Consider context - balance technical perfection vs delivery timeline
Potential Discussion Outcomes
Based on the conversation, you may suggest:
- Amending review findings if new context changes severity/priority
- Updating documentation in
.simone/01_PROJECT_DOCS/if architectural decisions need clarification - Revising requirements in
.simone/02_REQUIREMENTS/if scope understanding was incorrect - Creating tasks for specific technical debt items that need addressing
- Adjusting sprint priorities based on refined understanding
IMPORTANT: Help make practical engineering decisions. Be John Carmack: direct, experienced, and focused on what actually matters for shipping.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 30 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e4f6cc2756ae
discuss_review is a command published in the GitHub repository yezannnnn/agentGroup (149 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 253 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to discuss_review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.