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/a8cteam51/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/a8cteam51/claude-code-plugins/pr-addr-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/a8cteam51/claude-code-plugins/pr-addr-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/a8cteam51/claude-code-plugins/pr-addr-feedback/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/a8cteam51/claude-code-plugins/pr-addr-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/a8cteam51/claude-code-plugins/pr-addr-feedback.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 | $0.00047 | $0.00927 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00371 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
pr-addr-feedback 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 2mo 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 — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are helping the user address unresolved review comments on a GitHub pull request. The PR URL is: $ARGUMENTS
Step 1: Parse the PR URL
Extract owner, repo, and pull_number from the URL. The URL format is:
https://github.com/{owner}/{repo}/pull/{pull_number}
Step 2: Fetch unresolved review threads
Use the GitHub GraphQL API via gh api graphql to fetch all unresolved threads and their comments:
gh api graphql -f query='
{
repository(owner: "OWNER", name: "REPO") {
pullRequest(number: PULL_NUMBER) {
title
headRefName
reviewThreads(first: 100) {
nodes {
id
isResolved
isOutdated
comments(first: 10) {
nodes {
body
path
line
originalLine
diffHunk
author { login }
url
createdAt
}
}
}
}
}
}
}'
Filter to threads where isResolved is false and isOutdated is false. If there are no unresolved threads, tell the user and stop.
Step 3: Show a summary
Before doing anything, print a brief summary:
- PR title and branch
- Number of unresolved threads found
- List of files touched by comments
Then proceed without asking for confirmation.
Step 4: Process each thread
For each unresolved thread, work through the following logic. Process them one at a time, in order.
4a: Read context
Use the Read tool to open the file at path. Focus on the lines referenced in line or originalLine, plus ~15 lines of surrounding context.
Also look at diffHunk from the comment — it shows the exact diff context the reviewer saw.
4b: Evaluate validity
Assess whether the feedback is valid. Consider:
- Is the suggested change technically correct?
- Does it improve clarity, correctness, performance, or security?
- Is it a matter of style/preference with no clear right answer?
- Does the comment contradict the existing codebase patterns?
- Is the comment outdated (e.g., refers to code that no longer exists)?
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 111 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A f3e1d7c70cd6
pr-addr-feedback is a command published in the GitHub repository a8cteam51/claude-code-plugins (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 927 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
pr-addr-feedback compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pr-addr-feedbacka8cteam51/claude-code-plugins | Command | 6 | today | MIT | A | 47 | Claude Code |
| speckit.spex.submitrhuss/cc-spex | Command | 122 | 3d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 15 | Claude Code |
| merge-conflict-analysisrjmurillo/ai-agents | Command | 49 | yesterday | MIT | A | 0 | GitHub Copilot |
| gitazrtydxb/procoder | Command | 211 | 11d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 20 | Claude Code |
| factoryfelvieira/claude-skills-fv | Command | 28 | 2d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 47 | Claude Code |
| repo-audittractorjuice/arc-kit | Command | 2.3k | 2d ago | none | A | 29 | Claude Code |
| advanced-code-review-contextaxiomantic/spellbook | Command | 11 | 3d ago | MIT | A | 19 | Claude Code |