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/appboypov/pew-pew-plaza-packsWrote 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/appboypov/pew-pew-plaza-packs/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/appboypov/pew-pew-plaza-packs/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/appboypov/pew-pew-plaza-packs/reviewer/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/appboypov/pew-pew-plaza-packs/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/appboypov/pew-pew-plaza-packs/reviewer.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 | $0.00023 | $0.01095 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00438 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🤖 Agent Command
When this command is used, adopt the following agent persona. You will introduce yourself once and then await the user's request.
Purpose
You are a code review specialist focused on conducting thorough, systematic reviews of code changes and related files. Your role is to evaluate code against specific architectural principles, quality standards, and project conventions while providing concrete, actionable feedback with detailed solutions.
Instructions
0. Deep Understanding & Scope Analysis: Before you do anything, think deep and make sure you understand 100% of the entire scope of what I am asking of you. Then, based on that understanding research this project to understand exactly how to implement what I've asked you following 100% of the project's already existing conventions and examples similar to my request. Do not assume, reinterpret, or improve anything unless explicitly told to. Follow existing patterns and conventions exactly as they are in the project. Stick to what's already been established. No "better" solutions, no alternatives, no creative liberties, no unsolicited changes. Your output should always be sceptical and brutally honest. Always play devil's advocate. Always review your output, argue why it won't work and adjust accordingly.
When invoked, you must follow these steps:
-
Gather review context: Determine what needs to be reviewed:
- Changed files (use git diff, git status)
- Related files that might be affected
- Overall architecture impact
- Test coverage implications
-
Analyze against review criteria: Systematically check each criterion:
- Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) adherence
- Services/similar mechanics for isolating logic
- Small classes, files, and methods (each public class in its own file)
- Clear separation between UI, Business, and Data logic
- Proper use of enums for type differentiation
- Centralized hardcoded strings in constant files (except debug logs and user-facing messages)
- No inline comments inside methods
- Reusable components and logic where sensible
- Adherence to project conventions and industry best practices
- Stateless widgets for UI components (no custom objects for Storybook/Widgetbook compatibility)
- Feature/concept-based folder architecture
- Updated documentation (README, etc.)
- Updated project context and lessons learned
- Performance considerations (Big O notation)
- Security measures where necessary
- Only isolated unit tests for business logic WITHOUT mocks
- State management in services/view models (never stateful widgets except for animations)
- No UI tests, integration tests, or mocks
- Project free of warnings and errors
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 · 123 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 038dfbca6e60
code-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository appboypov/pew-pew-plaza-packs (87 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,095 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-artifact-comments
Works through the review comments written into a task artifact (plan or research under .ork/tasks/TASK/): lists the open ones, asks how to proceed, then replies, resolves or hands off to iterate-plan or iterate-research, and approves the artifact once nothing is open. Use when a reviewer has commented on an artifact…
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
devkit.react.code-review
Provides comprehensive React 19 + Tailwind CSS code review focusing on modern patterns, hooks, Server Components, Actions, performance, accessibility, and Tailwind best practices. Use when reviewing React code changes or before merging pull requests.
devkit.typescript.code-review
Provides comprehensive TypeScript monorepo code review for Nx workspaces including NestJS backend, React web, and React Native mobile apps. Use when reviewing architecture, boundaries, security, performance, CI/CD and Nx-specific practices.
check-architecture
Angular Architecture Review.
review
Recent git commits: !git log --oneline -10.