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/athola/claude-night-marketWrote 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/athola/claude-night-market/plugin-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/athola/claude-night-market/plugin-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/athola/claude-night-market/plugin-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/athola/claude-night-market/plugin-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/athola/claude-night-market/plugin-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 | $0.00040 | $0.00902 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00451 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00180 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
plugin-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plugin Review
Tiered plugin quality review: branch (quick gates), pr (quality scoring), release (full ecosystem audit). Detects affected plugins from git diff and reviews related plugins for side effects.
Invoke Skill(abstract:plugin-review), which carries the tier definitions,
the scope detection, the verdict and the output format.
When To Use
Use this command when you need to:
- Assessing overall plugin/skill architecture health
- Pre-release validation of plugin quality
- Quarterly maintenance audits
- New contributor onboarding to understand plugin structure
- Identifying improvement priorities across skills/commands/hooks
- Validating plugin meets quality standards
When NOT To Use
Avoid this command if:
- Single skill analysis - use /analyze-skill
- Single hook analysis - use /analyze-hook
- Creating new skills - use /create-skill
- Token estimation only - use /estimate-tokens
Usage
# Review current plugin (default: all checks)
/plugin-review
# Review specific plugin
/plugin-review plugins/abstract
# Focus on specific aspect
/plugin-review --focus skills
/plugin-review --focus hooks
/plugin-review --focus bloat
/plugin-review --focus tokens
# Output format
/plugin-review --format summary # High-level scores (default)
/plugin-review --format detailed # Full findings and recommendations
/plugin-review --format json # Machine-readable for CI
# CI/CD quality gate mode
/plugin-review --quality-gate --fail-on warning
Quality Levels
| Score | Level | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 91-100 | EXCELLENT | Production-ready, best practices |
| 76-90 | GOOD | Minor improvements suggested |
| 51-75 | OK | Issues requiring attention |
| 26-50 | POOR | Significant issues |
| 0-25 | CRITICAL | Major problems blocking release |
CI/CD Integration
# GitHub Actions example
- name: Plugin Quality Gate
run: |
/plugin-review --quality-gate --format json --output report.json
EXIT_CODE=$?
if [ $EXIT_CODE -ge 2 ]; then
echo "Quality gate failed (exit code $EXIT_CODE)"
exit 1
elif [ $EXIT_CODE -eq 1 ]; then
echo "Quality gate passed with warnings"
fi
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 124 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 5c53f463411a
plugin-review is a command published in the GitHub repository athola/claude-night-market (336 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 902 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
Other commands, from other repositories
claudex
Claude writes, Codex reviews, iterate until both agree — then ship with love.
debate
The debate — Claude and Codex argue a design decision from opposite corners, you arbitrate.
stats
Agreement stats — how often do Claude and Codex actually agree in this repo?
diff-review
AI-powered diff review for Solana-specific issues and code quality.
demo
A two-minute guided duet — plants bugs in a throwaway repo and lets Claude and Codex argue about them.
pr-issue-resolve
Follow these steps to analyze suggested changes (e.g., review comments, inline suggestions, or requested modifications) in a GitHub Pull Request (PR) and resolve them efficiently. The goal is to review, understand, plan fixes, apply changes, test, and update the PR while maintaining code quality and collaboration.