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/basher83/lunar-claudeWrote 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/lunar-claude/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/basher83/lunar-claude/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/lunar-claude/review-pr/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/lunar-claude/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/lunar-claude/review-pr.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 | $0.00015 | $0.02563 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01282 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00513 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00256 |
Grade A, and why
sc-review-pr 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 — 325 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run a context-aware PR review that gathers ticket context, PR metadata, and CLAUDE.md guidelines before running parallel review agents.
Constraints:
- Do NOT use
run_in_background: trueon any Task call. All agents run in foreground. - All tools are functional. Do not make exploratory calls.
- Only call tools required to complete the task.
- HIGH SIGNAL ONLY — flag issues where code will fail, not style concerns.
- CONTEXT-FIRST — understand author intent before reviewing.
Create a TodoWrite checklist before starting.
Phase 1: Context Gathering (haiku, parallel)
Launch three haiku agents in parallel to gather all context:
# Agent 1: PR Metadata
Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "haiku",
prompt: "Get PR metadata using gh CLI:
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json number,title,body,commits,files,headRefName,baseRefName,labels,author
Extract and return:
- PR number and title
- Full PR body/description
- List of commit messages
- List of changed files
- Branch names (head and base)
- Author
Return as structured data.")
# Agent 2: CLAUDE.md Finder
Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "haiku",
prompt: "Find all CLAUDE.md files in the repository being reviewed.
Step 1: Get the repository root
- Run: gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json headRepository --jq '.headRepository.name'
- Get local path by finding it: fd -t d -d 3 '<repo-name>' ~ 2>/dev/null | head -1
- Or use pwd if already in the repo directory
Step 2: Search for ALL CLAUDE.md files in that repo
- Run: fd -t f 'CLAUDE.md' <repo-path> 2>/dev/null
- This finds CLAUDE.md at any depth (root, .claude/, subdirectories)
Step 3: Read each file found
- Use the Read tool on each CLAUDE.md path
Return:
- Full paths to all CLAUDE.md files found
- Brief summary of key guidelines from each
- 'No CLAUDE.md files found' if none exist")
# Agent 3: Ticket Extractor
Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "haiku",
prompt: "Extract ticket references from PR metadata:
1. Get PR title and body: gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json title,body
2. Parse for ticket patterns:
- JIRA: PROJECT-123, PROJ-1234
- GitHub Issues: #123, owner/repo#123
- Linear: ABC-123
3. If GitHub issues found, fetch with: gh issue view [number] --json title,body
Return:
- List of ticket references found
- Ticket summaries if fetchable
- 'No ticket references found' if none")
Wait for all Phase 1 agents to complete before proceeding.
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 · 325 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A bc35bb711426
sc-review-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository basher83/lunar-claude (23 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 2,563 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.