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/benshapyro/cadre-devkit-claude/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/benshapyro/cadre-devkit-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/benshapyro/cadre-devkit-claude/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/benshapyro/cadre-devkit-claude/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/benshapyro/cadre-devkit-claude/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00008 | $0.00550 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
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 6d 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Command
Purpose: Qualitative code review - checks code quality, style, security, and best practices.
Distinct from /validate: This command does human-like code review. Use /validate for automated checks (types, lint, tests, build).
Workflow: /review → /validate → /ship
Process
1. Gather Changes
Get the current diff to review:
!git diff --name-only
!git diff --staged --name-only
If there are changes, get the full diff:
!git diff
!git diff --staged
If no changes found, inform the user and stop.
2. Perform Review
Use the code-reviewer agent for comprehensive review. The agent has skills: code-formatter, error-handler which auto-load.
Task(
subagent_type="code-reviewer",
prompt="Review the following code changes for quality, security, and best practices.
Files changed:
[list files from step 1]
Review focus:
- Code quality and maintainability (DRY, KISS, YAGNI)
- Security vulnerabilities (comprehensive OWASP checklist)
- Style consistency (via code-formatter skill)
- Error handling patterns (via error-handler skill)
- Test coverage for new/changed code
Provide a structured review with:
- Overall assessment (APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES)
- Positive findings
- Required changes (with file:line references)
- Suggestions for improvement
- Security concerns (if any)"
)
3. Present Results
Present the agent's review to the user with clear next steps.
Next Steps
After review is complete:
- If APPROVED: Run
/validateto verify automated checks, then/shipto commit - If NEEDS CHANGES: Fix the identified issues and re-run
/review
Example Flow
User: /review
Claude:
1. Gathers git diff (3 files changed)
2. Spawns code-reviewer agent with diff context
3. Agent reviews using its skills and security checklist
4. Presents structured review:
## Code Review Summary
**Overall Assessment**: APPROVE
### Positive Findings
- Clean separation of concerns in new utility functions
- Good error handling with descriptive messages
### Suggestions
- `src/utils/parser.ts:45` - Consider extracting the regex to a named constant
### Security Concerns
- None identified
---
Ready for `/validate` → `/ship`
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 97 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A ac65f6eb5b53
review is a command published in the GitHub repository benshapyro/cadre-devkit-claude (9 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 550 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.