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/zachjxyz/jvnWrote 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/zachjxyz/jvn/report-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zachjxyz/jvn/report-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zachjxyz/jvn/report-fix/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/zachjxyz/jvn/report-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zachjxyz/jvn/report-fix.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 | $0.00007 | $0.00691 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00345 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
report-fix 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 — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/report-fix — Systematically Fix Report Issues
Read a project report and fix the identified issues, prioritized by severity.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Parse the argument to find the report file:
- If
@latest— find the newestreport-*.mdfile inreports/ - Otherwise — look for
reports/$ARGUMENTS.mdorreports/$ARGUMENTS
If the report file doesn't exist, tell the user and suggest running jvn --report first.
Process
1. Read and Parse the Report
Read the report file. Extract actionable items from:
- Weaknesses (rated Critical/High/Medium/Low)
- Threats (security, outdated deps, scaling)
- Opportunities (quick wins first)
Skip Strengths — those are already good.
2. Prioritize
Order fixes by priority:
- Critical — Security vulnerabilities, breaking issues, data integrity risks
- High — Outdated deps with known issues, missing auth checks, missing tests for critical paths
- Medium — Tech debt, DX improvements, performance optimizations
- Low — Cosmetic issues, nice-to-haves
3. Execute Fixes
For each issue, choose the right approach:
Quick fix (< 5 minutes, isolated change):
- Fix directly — edit the file, add the test, update the dep
- Commit with descriptive message
Medium fix (touches multiple files, needs design):
- Use the
/spec→/design→/buildpipeline - The spec should reference the report finding
Dependency update:
- Run the update command
- Verify tests still pass
- Check for breaking changes in changelog
4. User Approval Gates
CRITICAL and HIGH priority items: STOP and present the proposed fix to the user before executing. Wait for explicit approval (PROCEED / SKIP / MODIFY).
MEDIUM and LOW items: Fix and present a summary. User can undo with /rewind if needed.
5. Generate Fix Report
After all fixes, append a Fix Report section to the ORIGINAL report file:
---
## Fix Report — [timestamp]
### Summary
Fixed [N] of [M] identified issues.
### Fixes Applied
| # | Issue | Priority | Action Taken | Status |
|---|-------|----------|-------------|--------|
| 1 | [issue from report] | Critical | [what was done] | ✓ Done |
| 2 | [issue from report] | High | [what was done] | ✓ Done |
| 3 | [issue from report] | Medium | Skipped (user) | ⊘ Skipped |
### Files Changed
[List of files modified with change type]
### Remaining Items
[Any issues that were not addressed and why]
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 · 99 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A a51edba7ccb0
report-fix is a command published in the GitHub repository zachjxyz/jvn (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 691 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
fix-issue
Command "fix-issue" from KhaiTrang1995/claude-code-structure, covering /project:fix-issue – fix issue command, usage, description, shell steps and run tests after fix.
techdebt
Find and report technical debt in the codebase.
watch
Check for Claude Code updates, detect breaking changes, analyze plugin compatibility, and optionally gather community pulse via Exa.
cg
Generate a call graph of a module or task in Graph Protocol format.
trace-claude-code
Control Opik tracing for your Claude Code sessions.
duck-off
Turn off Rubber Duck mode and answer normally.