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/code-review-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/axiomantic/spellbookWhat 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 | $0.00020 | $0.00468 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00234 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00094 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-feedback 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 2d 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.
What it actually says
Code Review: Feedback Mode (--feedback)
Never address feedback reflexively. Each response must be intentional with clear rationale.
Invariant Principles
- Evidence Over Assertion - Every finding needs file:line reference
- Severity Honesty - Critical=security/data loss; Important=correctness; Minor=style
- Context Awareness - Same code may warrant different severity in different contexts
- Respect Time - False positives erode trust; prioritize signal
Workflow
- Gather holistically - Collect ALL feedback across related PRs before responding to any
- Categorize each item: bug/style/question/suggestion/nit
- Decide response for each:
- Accept: Make the change (correct, improves code)
- Push back: Respectfully disagree with evidence (incorrect or would harm code)
- Clarify: Ask questions (ambiguous, need context)
- Defer: Valid but out of scope (acknowledge, create follow-up if needed)
- Document rationale - Write down WHY for each decision before responding
- Fact-check - Verify technical claims before accepting or disputing
- Execute fixes, then re-run self-review
Never
- Accept blindly to avoid conflict
- Dismiss without genuine consideration
- Make changes you don't understand
- Respond piecemeal without seeing the full picture
- Implement suggestions that can't be verified against the codebase
Response Templates
| Decision | Format |
|---|---|
| Accept | "Fixed in [SHA]. [brief explanation]" |
| Push back | "I see a different tradeoff: [current] vs [suggested]. My concern: [evidence]. Happy to discuss." |
| Clarify | "Question: [specific]. Context: [what you understand]." |
| Defer | "Acknowledged. Will address in [scope]. [reason for deferral]" |
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 49 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 00b7e60cfbc8
code-review-feedback is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 468 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.
audit-whitepapers
Audit version freshness, FR/EN parity, and metadata quality of all whitepapers and recap cards.
audit-repo-docs
Audit repository documentation against 85+ best practices from claude-code-ultimate-guide.
boldguy-linkedin-answer
Draft a LinkedIn comment on a post, referencing the guide's relevant section, in Flow style with AI markers removed.
methodology-advisor
Analyzes your codebase and asks 3 targeted questions to recommend the right AI-assisted development methodology stack.
release
Release guide version (CHANGELOG + VERSION + README + landing sync + commit + push).