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-sdk-app)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/basher83/lunar-claude/review-sdk-app"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/lunar-claude/review-sdk-app/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-sdk-app"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/lunar-claude/review-sdk-app.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 | $0.00011 | $0.02136 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.01068 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00427 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00214 |
Grade A, and why
review-sdk-app 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 10d 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 — 317 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Claude Agent SDK Application
You are tasked with reviewing a Claude Agent SDK (Python) application to ensure it follows SDK best practices and official documentation patterns. Follow these steps carefully:
Reference Documentation
Before starting, load the claude-agent-sdk skill to access patterns, examples, and the validation checklist:
# Load the skill for comprehensive SDK knowledge
/skill claude-agent-sdk
The skill provides:
- Validation checklist:
assets/sdk-validation-checklist.md(comprehensive review guide) - SDK patterns:
SKILL.mdandreferences/(official best practices) - Working examples:
examples/(reference implementations) - Template:
assets/sdk-template.py(ideal structure)
Review Approach
You have TWO options for reviewing SDK applications:
Option 1: Automated Validation (Recommended)
Launch the agent-sdk-verifier-py subagent for comprehensive automated review:
# The subagent will:
# - Read all application files
# - Check SDK patterns and configuration
# - Validate against official documentation
# - Provide detailed report with specific issues and recommendations
Best for:
- Quick validation
- New applications
- Pre-deployment checks
- Comprehensive coverage
Option 2: Manual Guided Review
Follow the validation checklist step-by-step with guided assistance.
Best for:
- Learning SDK patterns
- Understanding specific issues
- Deep dive into SDK concepts
- Educational reviews
Gather Information
Ask the user (if not provided via $ARGUMENTS):
-
Application path: "What is the path to your SDK application?"
- If $ARGUMENTS is provided, use that as the application path
- Wait for response before continuing
-
Review type: "Would you like:
- Automated validation (launch agent-sdk-verifier)
- Manual guided review (step-by-step checklist)
- Both (automated first, then deep dive on issues)"
- Wait for response before continuing
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 317 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 2004215a9750
review-sdk-app is a command published in the GitHub repository basher83/lunar-claude (23 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 2,136 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.