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/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zxpmail/reqforge/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zxpmail/reqforge/code-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/zxpmail/reqforge/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zxpmail/reqforge/code-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 | $0.00010 | $0.00195 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00078 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00039 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00019 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 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: /code-review
Entry: /code-review. Full workflow → references/workflow.md (Step 1–5, sole source).
| Step | Reference | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Baseline | workflow Step 1 | Spec + DEV-PLAN + dev-map/code-standards + DESIGN (if UI) |
| 2–4 Review | workflow Step 2–4 | Default change_complexity=simple → skip Step 2; still Scan→Aggregate. Mode A dispatch if moderate/complex |
| 5 Report | workflow Step 5 | confidence 1–5 (≥4 confirmed, =3 suspected); Priority derived from Must/Should/Insight |
Pass change_complexity explicitly to escalate parallel review.
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 · 17 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A c1fe640e0b6e
code-review 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 195 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
skill-creator
Create or update an OpenCode skill using the bundled skill-creator workflow.
skill-registry
Rebuild the OpenCode skill registry for the current project and installed skills.
cross-audit
Second-model review. Picks an auditor (codex/gemini/opencode/aider/copilot), excludes the caller, writes a prompt to paste, reads the response back. Usage: /cross-audit [--with | list | compare].
cross-critique
Adversarial multi-angle critique. All three auditors fire in parallel (codex=technical, gemini=strategic, claude=ux). Counter-args ranked by rebuttal survival score, not raw severity. Usage: /cross-critique [--with | list | compare].
repo-consistency-sweep
Defect-class detection for the lower-value half of code review: convention drift, type-safety gaps, security and multi-tenant invariants, operability issues. Runs after review-hard. Checks against a curated bug-class library that grows via pr-feedback-ingest. Use when at least one slice is implemented and you want a…
pr-feedback-ingest
Turn PR feedback (Greptile, CI, bots, humans) into a traceable backlog, so the next step is a narrow implement-approved-slice. Corrective scope only. Use when a PR has review feedback to map to files and slices. Do not use for a new direction or contract (use post-review-pivot), no payload, or task-memory drift only…