review

review is a command for coding agents from akurinnoy/ok_plugins. It costs 5 tokens per session (2,140 once invoked), scanned A, original, EPL-2.0.

A standard command for reviewing the code and changes in a pull request, which is a proposed update to a shared codebase.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to start a pull request code review.
Why use it?
The input gives no further details about the review process or checks it performs.

Command

Part of the ok-pr-review plugin — 6 commands shipped together

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/akurinnoy/ok_plugins/review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/akurinnoy/ok_plugins

Or install ok-pr-review, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 6 commands.

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 review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/akurinnoy/ok_plugins/review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/akurinnoy/ok_plugins/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/akurinnoy/ok_plugins/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/akurinnoy/ok_plugins/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 5 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,140 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin unknown 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 $0.00005 $0.02140
Opus 5 $0.00003 $0.01070
Sonnet 5 $0.00001 $0.00428
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00214

Measured 3d ago against content hash ca4a327cebb7, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

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 3d 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.

plugins/ok-pr-review/commands/review.md · 248 lines

The source is not reproduced here

Licensed EPL-2.0

The repository is licensed EPL-2.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.

Read it on GitHub

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. 3d ago First seen · 248 lines · 5 tokens per session scan A ca4a327cebb7

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository akurinnoy/ok_plugins (2 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed EPL-2.0. It adds 5 tokens to every session and 2,140 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 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.