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/berkcangumusisik/agent-hubWrote 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/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/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/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/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 | $0.00028 | $0.00259 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00130 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00052 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00026 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Run a multi-specialist review of the current changes.
- Determine the diff: uncommitted changes, or the current branch vs the main branch if the working tree is clean. Read the changed code.
- In parallel, delegate to these specialists (spawn them as subagents), each scoped to the diff:
- code-reviewer → correctness, bugs, maintainability
- security-reviewer → vulnerabilities, authz/authn, secrets, data exposure
- qa-tester → missing test coverage and risky edge cases
- architect → design/contract concerns and simpler alternatives
- Each specialist follows the Profile-first protocol (reads
.claude/agent-hub/profile.yml), so the review respects this project's stack and conventions. - Merge every finding into ONE de-duplicated report, grouped by severity
(Blocking / Should-fix / Nit), each with
file:lineand a concrete fix. - End with a one-line verdict: ship or fix-first.
$ARGUMENTS
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 · 21 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A faab9a19a829
review is a command published in the GitHub repository berkcangumusisik/agent-hub (14 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 259 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
cpp-review
Comprehensive C++ code review for memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and security. Invokes the cpp-reviewer agent.
gh-triage
GitHub OSS maintainer lifecycle triage, review, and approval management.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
fire-7-review
Multi-perspective code review with 15 specialized reviewer personas.
pr
Analyze changes, detect scope issues, and create a well-structured PR.
refactor
Analyze code for SOLID violations and suggest targeted improvements.