Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to basher83/agent-auditor. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/basher83/agent-auditor/main/.claude/commands/pr-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/basher83/agent-auditorWrote 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/basher83/agent-auditor/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/basher83/agent-auditor/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/agent-auditor/pr-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/basher83/agent-auditor/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/agent-auditor/pr-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 | $0.00938 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00375 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Task: Verify PR Comparison Analysis Claims
Document to review: docs/plans/claude-docs-upgrade/pr-comparison-analysis.md
Success criteria: Accurate verification of factual claims through code inspection.
Failure mode to avoid: Meta-analysis without verification.
Instructions
You are reviewing a PR comparison analysis document. Your job is to verify factual claims, not provide philosophical insights.
Core Rules
- Evidence before claims: Never mark a claim as verified without showing the git command and output that proves it
- No meta-analysis: Do not write about recursive patterns, cognitive dynamics, or turtles. That's a distraction.
- Boring is good: Methodical verification beats sophisticated commentary
- Show your work: Every verification must include the command you ran
- Verify behavior, not names: Don't just check if a file exists - check what the code DOES. A script named differently can still fulfill the requirement. Compare functionality across PRs, not just filenames.
Required Process
For each major claim in the analysis:
- Extract the claim: Quote it exactly
- Identify what would prove/disprove it: What file/code would verify this?
- Define the counter-evidence: Before running commands, explicitly state: "This claim would be FALSE if I found [specific evidence]" Focus on FUNCTIONALITY, not filenames.
- Cross-reference if needed: If claim says "PR X missing Y but PR Z has Y", verify what Y actually IS in PR Z first, then look for equivalent functionality in PR X (any filename).
- Run the verification command: Use git show/diff/grep
- Show the evidence: Paste relevant output
- State verdict: ✅ Verified / ❌ Incorrect / ⚠️ Partially true
- Move to next claim: No commentary, just next verification
Example Verification Format
Claim: "PR #7 missing Jina Reader direct API variation"
What this means: PR #7 lacks a script that makes direct HTTP calls to r.jina.ai (not using MCP)
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 · 118 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 90a24ca95415
pr-review is a command published in the GitHub repository basher83/agent-auditor (5 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 938 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).