issue-review

issue-review is a command for Claude Code from assafkip/kipi-system. It costs 21 tokens per session (2,163 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A command that reviews the active work item using built-in and adversarial checks. It only examines the files listed in the approved scope and limits repeated review rounds.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to inspect an active issue for problems after verification, record review results, and manage the allowed number of review attempts.
Why use it?
It prevents reviews from examining unapproved code and avoids spending time on work whose required checks have not passed.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} variable. Also seen: mentions subagents; mentions Codex.

Runs only inside its plugin — its command needs a path that Claude Code sets for a plugin’s own hooks and for nothing else. Install the plugin, not this.

Part of the kipi-dsse plugin — 6 commands shipped together

Good fit Use it to inspect an active issue for problems after verification, record review results, and manage the allowed number of review attempts.

Compare 6 commands from other repositories ↓
Install

Getting it into your agent

This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.

Claude Code
/plugin marketplace add assafkip/kipi-system
Claude Code
/plugin install kipi-dsse

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install kipi-dsse, 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 issue-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for issue-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 21 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,163 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original 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 5.1 $0.00021 $0.02163
Opus 5 $0.00010 $0.01081
Sonnet 5 $0.00004 $0.00433
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00216

Measured 9d ago against content hash fb76172bc148, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

issue-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 9d 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/kipi-dsse/commands/issue-review.md · 118 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Run the required reviews for the active DSSE issue. Execute in order:

  1. Run python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" status. Confirm an issue is loaded AND receipts.verified is set. If verified is null, stop. Tell the founder to run /issue-verify first. Reviewing unverified code wastes Codex runtime.

  2. Pull the snapshotted scope. The runner stamped allowed_files into state at load/approve so mid-issue spec edits cannot expand the review surface:

    ALLOWED=$(python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" allowed-files)
    ISSUE_ID=$(python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" status | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin).get('issue_id',''))")
    

    $ALLOWED is a JSON array (e.g. ["q-ktlyst/.q-system/agent-pipeline/schemas/**","q-ktlyst/.q-system/scripts/**"]). If empty, stop and tell the founder the spec has no scope.

  3. Try to claim a "standard" review slot before invoking Codex:

    python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" record-review standard
    
    • Exit 0: slot claimed, proceed to step 4.
    • Exit 2: cap reached (default 2 standard rounds). The runner names the cap and the override env. Stop and ask the founder if they want to opt in via ISSUE_ALLOW_REVIEW_REPEAT=1 for a single retry, OR triage and close with the existing review.
  4. Invoke codex:review (Codex native review) against origin/main. Build the focus text with the scope filter inline so Codex stays inside the contracted surface:

    Scope filter: $ALLOWED
    Limit findings to changes inside these paths. Code outside these paths is out of contract for this issue. If a finding requires touching files outside this list, mark it out-of-scope explicitly and do not propose a patch.
    

    Use --base origin/main --background unless the diff is trivially small (1-2 files). When the command returns, wait for completion via codex:result / codex:status. Paste the full verdict block to the founder verbatim.

    $REVIEW_SOURCE / $ADVERSARIAL_SOURCE name the reviewer that actually ran. Never substitute one for another.

    Reviewer that ran $REVIEW_SOURCE $ADVERSARIAL_SOURCE
    Codex codex-review codex-adversarial
    Claude senior-staff-engineer subagent claude-review claude-adversarial

    Pick the row for the reviewer that ACTUALLY ran. Stamping codex-* for a pass Codex did not run puts a false provenance record in the findings ledger — worse than being blocked, in a repo whose whole thesis is receipts. If one reviewer is unavailable (no credits, missing auth), use another row and stamp what ran. Do NOT hardcode an outage into this file: a stale availability note outlives the outage and sends every later session to the wrong reviewer. manual and plan are the author's own words and the writer refuses them here by design.

    Immediately pipe the standard-review findings to disk (compaction hardening: if the conversation compacts after this point, the findings survive because they are on disk, not in narrative memory). Translate Codex's free-form verdict into [{severity, body, affected_path}]. The writer assigns sequential ids, stamps created_at, marks out_of_scope=true for paths outside $ALLOWED, and sets disposition=pending:

    echo '<JSON_ARRAY>' | python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_findings.py" \
      add "$ISSUE_ID" --source "$REVIEW_SOURCE" --allowed-files-json "$ALLOWED"
    

    If the standard review returned approve with no findings, skip the writer call for this source. Do this before invoking the adversarial pass in step 6.

  5. Try to claim an "adversarial" review slot:

    python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" record-review adversarial
    
    • Exit 0: slot claimed, proceed to step 6.
    • Exit 2: cap reached (default 1 adversarial round per slice). Stop. Ask the founder if they want to opt in via ISSUE_ALLOW_REVIEW_REPEAT=1 OR proceed straight to closeout.

Read the full file on GitHub · 118 lines

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. 9d ago First seen · 118 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A fb76172bc148

Subscribe to this mod's changes

issue-review is a command published in the GitHub repository assafkip/kipi-system (110 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 2,163 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.