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.
npx agentmods add commands/axiomantic/spellbook/advanced-code-review-verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/axiomantic/spellbookWrote 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/axiomantic/spellbook/advanced-code-review-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/advanced-code-review-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/advanced-code-review-verify.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00019 | $0.03926 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01963 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00785 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00393 |
Grade A, and why
advanced-code-review-verify 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 5d 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 — 433 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase 4: Verification
Invariant Principles
- Every finding must be verifiable against actual code: If a finding cannot be verified by reading the file at the specified line, it is not a valid finding.
- REFUTED findings must be removed, not just flagged: False positives erode trust. Remove them from final output entirely; log in audit for transparency.
- INCONCLUSIVE findings must be clearly marked: Uncertainty is acceptable; hidden uncertainty is not. Mark findings that could not be verified so humans can assess.
- PR mode = diff-only source: When reviewing a PR (not a local branch), the diff is the only authoritative code. Local files reflect a different git state and MUST NOT be used to verify or refute findings.
4.0 Pre-Flight: Branch Safety Check
The reviewing-prs skill is the single source for that decision. Load it and
apply its review_source decision table; do not re-derive the rule here. This
command previously carried its own copy, and the copy had already diverged — it
missed the worktree case, so a review running inside a worktree checked out to the
PR branch was downgraded to DIFF_ONLY and lost every verification it could have
made.
Take review_source from review-manifest.json if Phase 1 recorded it; otherwise
compute it per reviewing-prs and write it back to the manifest so the later
phases and this one cannot disagree.
Phase 4's consequence of review_source == "DIFF_ONLY":
- ALL verify_* functions return
"INCONCLUSIVE"immediately — do NOT read local files - Mark the finding
[NEEDS VERIFICATION]in the report - Reason: "PR review — local HEAD does not match PR HEAD SHA; local files reflect different code"
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 433 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 6cabee8a21c2
advanced-code-review-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 3,926 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
boldguy-linkedin-answer
Draft a LinkedIn comment on a post, referencing the guide's relevant section, in Flow style with AI markers removed.
security-audit
Comprehensive security audit of your project AND Claude Code configuration. Analyzes secrets exposure, injection surfaces, dependencies, hook security, and produces a scored security posture assessment.
audit-quiz-coverage
Find quiz coverage gaps from recent guide/CHANGELOG/CC-releases changes and propose new questions.
worktree
Create a git worktree for isolated feature/fix work.
sync
Check guide/landing synchronization status.