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.
npx agentmods add commands/yezannnnn/agentgroup/project_reviewgit 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/project_review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/yezannnnn/agentgroup/project_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yezannnnn/agentgroup/project_review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.02399 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01200 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00480 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00240 |
Grade A, and why
project_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 6d 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 project_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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 262 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Project Review - Execute top to bottom
Perform a comprehensive project-level review focusing on architecture, progress, and technical decisions.
IMPORTANT:
- This is a high-level review of overall project state, not recent changes.
- Unless clearly mentioned in project documents, there is no timeline and schedule is irrelevant
Create a TODO with EXACTLY these 9 Items
- Analyze review scope and timing
- Execute and assess test infrastructure health
- Assess project documentation alignment
- Review milestone and sprint progress
- Analyze codebase architecture and structure
- Audit file organization and workflow compliance
- Evaluate technical decisions and complexity
- Critique implementation quality (John Carmack perspective)
- Provide comprehensive assessment with recommendations
Follow step by step and adhere closely to the following instructions for each step.
DETAILS on every TODO item
1. Analyze review scope and timing
Check: <$ARGUMENTS>
If empty, perform full project review. Otherwise interpret <$ARGUMENTS> to identify specific focus areas (milestone, sprint, architecture component, etc.). Unless stated in Argument do not compare to previews project reviews in .simone/10_STATE_OF_PROJECT.
IMPORTANT: This review looks at overall project state in context of recent changes.
CRITICAL: Read .simone/00_PROJECT_MANIFEST.md FIRST to understand:
- Current milestone and sprint status
- What work is complete vs in-progress vs planned
- Active sprint objectives and deliverables
CONTEXT CHECK: Before evaluating functionality:
- Navigate to
.simone/03_SPRINTS/to find the current sprint - Read the sprint meta file to understand what's in scope
- Check completed vs planned tasks within the sprint
- Understand what future sprints will deliver
REVIEW PRINCIPLE: Evaluate against CURRENT SPRINT deliverables, not full milestone scope.
2. Execute and assess test infrastructure health
CRITICAL: Test infrastructure health is a BLOCKING criteria for sprint/milestone progression.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 262 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 11f540bf0753
project_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 2,399 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to project_review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.