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/ANcpLua/ancplua-claude-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/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/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/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/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 | $0.00012 | $0.00551 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00220 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00055 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review code for security vulnerabilities, style issues, performance problems, and best practices.
Usage
/review [target]
Targets
/review- Review all uncommitted changes./review file.ts- Review a specific file./review src/- Review all files in a directory./review --staged- Review only staged changes./review --branch=feature- Review changes in a branch.
Workflow
1. Gather Context
git diff --stat
git diff
Understand: purpose of changes, affected files, expected behavior.
2. Security Audit
Check for: injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, XSS), authentication/authorization flaws, hardcoded secrets, missing input validation, insecure dependencies.
Common patterns:
- SQL injection — Bad: string concatenation in queries. Good: parameterized queries.
- XSS — Bad:
innerHTML = userInput. Good:textContent = userInput. - Missing error handling — Bad: bare
JSON.parse(input). Good: try/catch with typed exceptions.
3. Style Check
Verify: naming conventions, formatting consistency, necessary documentation, logical file organization.
4. Performance Review
Look for: N+1 queries, unnecessary computation, memory issues, blocking operations in async contexts, inefficient algorithms.
5. Best Practices
Check: error handling, logging levels, test coverage, DRY principle, single responsibility.
6. Generate Report
Severity Levels
| Level | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|
CRITICAL |
Security vulnerability, data loss | Must fix now |
HIGH |
Bugs, significant issues | Fix before merge |
MEDIUM |
Code quality, maintainability | Fix soon |
LOW |
Minor improvements | Nice to have |
INFO |
Observations, positive feedback | No action needed |
Checklist
- Security vulnerabilities checked
- Code style verified
- Performance issues identified
- Error handling reviewed
- Test coverage assessed
- Report generated with findings
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 · 85 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 2db73e0792ee
review is a command published in the GitHub repository ANcpLua/ancplua-claude-plugins (6 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 551 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 2026-10-01.
review compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reviewANcpLua/ancplua-claude-plugins | Command | 6 | 3d ago | MIT | A | 12 | Claude Code |
| review-branchdamusix/atomic-claude | Command | 117 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 35 | Claude Code |
| initazrtydxb/procoder | Command | 211 | 3d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 16 | Claude Code |
| refactorRchGrav/claudebox | Command | 1.2k | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 9 | Claude Code |
| spec-trace-requirementsrjmurillo/ai-agents | Command | 49 | today | MIT | A | 0 | GitHub Copilot |
| merge-conflict-analysisrjmurillo/ai-agents | Command | 49 | today | MIT | A | 0 | GitHub Copilot |
| bootmicrosoft/PromptKit | Command | 114 | 15d ago | MIT | A | 14 | GitHub Copilot |