Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to agigante80/actual-mcp-server. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/agigante80/actual-mcp-server/main/.claude/commands/full-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agigante80/actual-mcp-serverWrote 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/agigante80/actual-mcp-server/full-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/agigante80/actual-mcp-server/full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/agigante80/actual-mcp-server/full-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/agigante80/actual-mcp-server/full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/agigante80/actual-mcp-server/full-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 | $0.00024 | $0.04591 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.02295 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00918 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00459 |
Grade A, and why
full-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 11d 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to full-review — 324 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 546 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Comprehensive Code Review Orchestrator
CRITICAL BEHAVIORAL RULES
You MUST follow these rules exactly. Violating any of them is a failure.
- Execute phases in order. Do NOT skip ahead, reorder, or merge phases.
- Write output files. Each phase MUST produce its output file in
.full-review/before the next phase begins. Read from prior phase files -- do NOT rely on context window memory. - Stop at checkpoints. When you reach a
PHASE CHECKPOINT, you MUST stop and wait for explicit user approval before continuing. Use the AskUserQuestion tool with clear options. - Halt on failure. If any step fails (agent error, missing files, access issues), STOP immediately. Present the error and ask the user how to proceed. Do NOT silently continue.
- Use only local agents. All
subagent_typereferences use agents bundled in.claude/agents/. No cross-plugin dependencies. - Never enter plan mode autonomously. Do NOT use EnterPlanMode. This command IS the plan -- execute it.
Pre-flight Checks
1. Check for existing session
Check if .full-review/state.json exists:
-
If it exists and
statusis"in_progress": Read it, display the current phase, and ask the user:Found an in-progress review session: Target: [target from state] Current phase: [phase from state] 1. Resume from where we left off 2. Start fresh (archives existing session) -
If it exists and
statusis"complete": Ask whether to archive and start fresh.
2. Initialize state
Create .full-review/ directory and state.json:
{
"target": "$ARGUMENTS",
"status": "in_progress",
"flags": {
"security_focus": false,
"performance_critical": false,
"strict_mode": false
},
"current_step": 1,
"current_phase": 1,
"completed_steps": [],
"files_created": [],
"started_at": "ISO_TIMESTAMP",
"last_updated": "ISO_TIMESTAMP"
}
Parse $ARGUMENTS for --security-focus, --performance-critical, --strict-mode flags.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 546 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A e06effbbfa73
full-review is a command published in the GitHub repository agigante80/actual-mcp-server (54 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 4,591 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to full-review, differing in 324 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
validate-pr-description
Use when validating a PR title and description for conventional commit format, issue linking keywords, and template compliance before submission.
analyst
Use when performing local analyst review before pushing PR changes. Assesses code quality, impact analysis, and maintainability.
audit-mirage-analyze
Phases 2-3 and 7 of auditing-green-mirage: systematic line-by-line audit, the Green Mirage Patterns, named assertion shapes, and the fix-verification Test Adversary prompt.
address-pr-feedback
Systematically address PR review comments. Fetches all threads, categorizes by status (acknowledged, silently fixed, unaddressed), and guides user through posting replies and implementing fixes with explicit approval.
advanced-code-review-plan
Advanced Code Review Phase 1: Strategic Planning - scope analysis, risk categorization, priority ordering.