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/b33eep/claude-code-setupWrote 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/b33eep/claude-code-setup/do-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/b33eep/claude-code-setup/do-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/b33eep/claude-code-setup/do-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/b33eep/claude-code-setup/do-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/b33eep/claude-code-setup/do-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 | $0.00000 | $0.02267 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00907 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00453 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00227 |
Grade A, and why
do-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 1mo 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 — 324 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Do Review: Code Review via comprehensive-review
Trigger a code review on your recent changes using the comprehensive-review plugin. This is Step 3 in the Development Flow — review before committing.
Usage
/do-review # Review all uncommitted changes
/do-review HEAD~3..HEAD # Review a specific commit range
/do-review --branch # Review current branch vs main
/do-review --security # Include security audit
/do-review --full # Run all 3 review agents (alias for --security)
Tasks
1. Validate arguments and determine review scope
Parse arguments into scope and agent flags:
- Scope args (mutually exclusive): commit range (e.g.
HEAD~3..HEAD),--branch, or no args - Agent flags (optional, combinable with any scope):
--security,--full
Unrecognized argument (not a scope arg or agent flag):
Usage: /do-review [HEAD~N..HEAD | --branch] [--security | --full]
Stop here. Do not proceed.
Based on scope:
| Invocation | Scope | Git command |
|---|---|---|
/do-review (no scope args) |
All uncommitted changes | git diff HEAD |
/do-review HEAD~3..HEAD |
Specific commit range | git diff HEAD~3..HEAD |
/do-review --branch |
Current branch vs main | git diff main...HEAD |
Run the appropriate git diff command.
If no changes found:
Nothing to review. No changes detected.
Stop here. Do not proceed.
If large changeset (20+ files or 500+ lines):
Large changeset: [N] files, ~[M] lines changed.
Review may be less thorough. Continue as-is, or narrow the scope?
[Continue] / [Specify files or range]
If user narrows scope, re-run with the adjusted scope.
2. Prepare review context
Gather context for the review agents:
- Get the diff — output of the git diff command from step 1
- List changed files — extract file paths from the diff
- Load coding standards — for each changed file, check if a matching coding standards skill exists:
- Identify file extensions in the changeset
- Read matching skills from
~/.claude/skills/(follow the Skill Loading table in global CLAUDE.md) - Collect relevant standards content
- Read project context — tech stack and current task from project CLAUDE.md (About section, Tech Stack, Current Status)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 324 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e6a59c1e11df
do-review is a command published in the GitHub repository b33eep/claude-code-setup (57 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,267 tokens. 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
review
Send the current git diff to Antigravity (agy) for code review. Optional focus text to steer the review.
review-skills
Review changed skills: automated bash checks + 9 structural dimensions (D1-D9) + 5 intent checks (M1-M5). PASS/FAIL verdict. Fix in-place.
check
A combined code-quality review and design-to-implementation consistency check. It reads the changed files once, then evaluates them from both review perspectives.
audit-project
Multi-agent code review with iterative improvement.
pr-review
Reviews pull request changes to provide feedback, check for issues, and suggest improvements before merging into the main codebase.
code-review
Perform a comprehensive code review of recent changes.