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/zxpmail/ReqForgeWrote 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/zxpmail/reqforge/bug-fixer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zxpmail/reqforge/bug-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zxpmail/reqforge/bug-fixer/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/zxpmail/reqforge/bug-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zxpmail/reqforge/bug-fixer.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 | $0.00010 | $0.00126 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00050 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00025 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00013 |
Grade A, and why
bug-fixer 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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
Command: /bug-fixer
Entry: describe the bug or pass code-review findings. Full workflow → references/workflow.md.
| Phase | Reference | Acceptance |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence | debugging-strategy § Stage 1 | Repro steps + logs clear |
| Root cause | cot-diagnostic + Stage 3 | Cause confirmed with evidence |
| Fix | workflow § Verification | Tests pass; re-review with change_complexity=simple unless large change |
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 15 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 0310ffdb09c4
bug-fixer is a command published in the GitHub repository zxpmail/ReqForge (18 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 126 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
doctor
Run IJFW health check (files, MCP server, hooks, memory, caps, framing).
watchdog
Run a superskill watchdog pass. Input: $ARGUMENTS (empty = dig the latest session).
cleanup
Detect and remove orphaned code, unused components, dead routes, and stale database artifacts.
review-hard
Review the current task changes for correctness, safety, and maintainability risks before slice closure or PR prep, and recommend the smallest safe next step. Use when a slice or task-level implementation was completed, the user wants a focused engineering risk review before closure or PR prep, or meaningful issues…
incident-triage
Triage a concrete technical failure (stack trace, failing test, runtime symptom, production alert), classify it and pick a fix size (HOTFIX/SLICE/INVESTIGATION/ESCALATE). Use when there is concrete failure evidence, an active task folder exists, and urgency is real or unclear, or hotfix versus full flow is unclear. Do…
code-locate
Locate code paths and line ranges for a described behavior: up to 10 candidates with HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW confidence and a search trail, plus a proposed SOURCEOFTRUTH.md update. Use when the first question is where one specific behavior lives and paths are unknown. Do not use when paths are explicit, the codebase is tiny…