cpp-review

cpp-review is a command for Claude Code from affaan-m/ECC. It costs 29 tokens per session (898 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A C++ code-review command that examines changed files for correctness, safety, concurrency, and modern C++ practices.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after changing C++ code, before committing, during pull-request reviews, or when learning an unfamiliar C++ codebase.
Why use it?
It can reveal memory bugs, data races, unsafe code, and other problems before they reach production or a commit. It also runs clang-tidy and cppcheck when available.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the ecc plugin — 78 skills, 58 commands, 70 agents, 1 MCP server shipped together

Good fit Use it after changing C++ code, before committing, during pull-request reviews, or when learning an unfamiliar C++ codebase.

Compare 6 commands from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/affaan-m/ecc/cpp-review
About the project

ECC is a toolkit that organizes and improves how coding agents work through skills, memory, security checks, research practices, and related extensions. It is for developers using agents such as Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and Cursor.

affaan-m/ECC · 290,905 stars · on GitHub · ecc.tools

Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install ecc, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 78 skills, 58 commands, 70 agents, 1 MCP server.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for cpp-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/affaan-m/ecc/cpp-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/affaan-m/ecc/cpp-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/affaan-m/ecc/cpp-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/affaan-m/ecc/cpp-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for cpp-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/affaan-m/ecc/cpp-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/affaan-m/ecc/cpp-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 29 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 898 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. ✓ AI security review Fable 5.1 · 6 Sept 2026 📄 Read the review
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00029 $0.00898
Opus 5.5 $0.00012 $0.00359
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00006 $0.00180
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00090

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 58a0e058207b, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

cpp-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.

Origin

Copies of this mod

5 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:

commands/cpp-review.md · 133 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

C++ Code Review

This command invokes the cpp-reviewer agent for comprehensive C++-specific code review.

What This Command Does

  1. Identify C++ Changes: Find modified .cpp, .hpp, .cc, .h files via git diff
  2. Run Static Analysis: Execute clang-tidy and cppcheck
  3. Memory Safety Scan: Check for raw new/delete, buffer overflows, use-after-free
  4. Concurrency Review: Analyze thread safety, mutex usage, data races
  5. Modern C++ Check: Verify code follows C++17/20 conventions and best practices
  6. Generate Report: Categorize issues by severity

When to Use

Use /cpp-review when:

  • After writing or modifying C++ code
  • Before committing C++ changes
  • Reviewing pull requests with C++ code
  • Onboarding to a new C++ codebase
  • Checking for memory safety issues

Review Categories

CRITICAL (Must Fix)

  • Raw new/delete without RAII
  • Buffer overflows and use-after-free
  • Data races without synchronization
  • Command injection via system()
  • Uninitialized variable reads
  • Null pointer dereferences

HIGH (Should Fix)

  • Rule of Five violations
  • Missing std::lock_guard / std::scoped_lock
  • Detached threads without proper lifetime management
  • C-style casts instead of static_cast/dynamic_cast
  • Missing const correctness

MEDIUM (Consider)

  • Unnecessary copies (pass by value instead of const&)
  • Missing reserve() on known-size containers
  • using namespace std; in headers
  • Missing [[nodiscard]] on important return values
  • Overly complex template metaprogramming

Automated Checks Run

# Static analysis
clang-tidy --checks='*,-llvmlibc-*' src/*.cpp -- -std=c++17

# Additional analysis
cppcheck --enable=all --suppress=missingIncludeSystem src/

# Build with warnings
cmake --build build -- -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic

Example Usage

User: /cpp-review

Agent:
# C++ Code Review Report

## Files Reviewed
- src/handler/user.cpp (modified)
- src/service/auth.cpp (modified)

## Static Analysis Results
✓ clang-tidy: 2 warnings
✓ cppcheck: No issues

## Issues Found

[CRITICAL] Memory Leak
File: src/service/auth.cpp:45
Issue: Raw `new` without matching `delete`
```cpp
auto* session = new Session(userId);  // Memory leak!
cache[userId] = session;

Fix: Use std::unique_ptr

auto session = std::make_unique<Session>(userId);
cache[userId] = std::move(session);

[HIGH] Missing const Reference File: src/handler/user.cpp:28 Issue: Large object passed by value

void processUser(User user) {  // Unnecessary copy

Fix: Pass by const reference

void processUser(const User& user) {

Summary

  • CRITICAL: 1
  • HIGH: 1
  • MEDIUM: 0

Recommendation: FAIL: Block merge until CRITICAL issue is fixed

Read the full file on GitHub · 133 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 133 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 58a0e058207b

Subscribe to this mod's changes

cpp-review is a command published in the GitHub repository affaan-m/ECC (290,905 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 898 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.