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/arbiterForge/codeArbiterWrote 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/arbiterforge/codearbiter/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/arbiterforge/codearbiter/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/arbiterforge/codearbiter/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/arbiterforge/codearbiter/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/arbiterforge/codearbiter/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 | $0.00033 | $0.01436 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00574 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00287 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00144 |
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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed AGPL-3.0
The repository is licensed AGPL-3.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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.
- 3d ago Changed · -3 lines e9fbfc97acfc
- 15d ago Changed · +29 lines ce0f94d2a523
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines a5b26751bdee
- 1mo ago First seen · 63 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 9f4945a6708d
review is a command published in the GitHub repository arbiterForge/codeArbiter (149 stars, last pushed today), licensed AGPL-3.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,436 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
refactor-code
Intelligently refactor and improve code quality.
code-review
Comprehensive code quality review with security, performance, and architecture analysis.
diff-review
Review the current diff before committing. Be concise.
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
conformance
Assess architecture conformance — ADR decision implementation, cross-decision consistency, design-principles alignment, architecture drift, technical debt, and custom constraint rules.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.