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/bgreenwell/claude-pluginsWrote 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/bgreenwell/claude-plugins/gemini-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/bgreenwell/claude-plugins/gemini-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bgreenwell/claude-plugins/gemini-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/bgreenwell/claude-plugins/gemini-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bgreenwell/claude-plugins/gemini-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 | $0.00037 | $0.01869 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00748 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00374 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00187 |
Grade A, and why
gemini-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 — 300 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/gemini-review Command
Quick, explicit Gemini review with sensible defaults and structured output.
Syntax
/gemini-review [file-pattern] [--model flash|pro] [--focus area]
Arguments
file-pattern (optional)
- File path, glob pattern, or directory to review
- If omitted: Reviews git staged files (
git diff --cached --name-only) - Examples:
src/auth/*,src/auth/login.js,tests/*.test.js
--model (optional)
- Model to use for review
- Options:
flash(fast, default) orpro(thorough) - Default:
gemini-2.5-flash
--focus (optional)
- Specific area to focus review on
- Examples:
security,performance,maintainability,testing - Default: General code quality review
How It Works
When user invokes this command:
-
Parse Arguments
- Extract file pattern (or use git staged files)
- Determine model (Flash or Pro)
- Identify focus area if specified
-
Validate Files
- Check gemini-cli is installed and authenticated
- Verify files exist and are accessible
- Filter out binary/build files
-
Construct Prompt
- Build focused Gemini prompt based on review type
- Include @ file references
- Add focus-specific criteria if --focus provided
-
Execute Review
- Call gemini-cli with
--output-format json - Use specified model (--model flag)
- Capture structured JSON response
- Call gemini-cli with
-
Parse Results
- Extract review findings from JSON
- Extract token usage statistics
- Parse for errors, warnings, suggestions
-
Format Output
- Display file-by-file breakdown
- Show severity levels (✓ OK, ⚠ Warning, ❌ Error)
- Present actionable recommendations
- Show token usage at bottom
Examples
Review Git Staged Files
/gemini-review
Behavior: Reviews all files in git staging area
Review Specific Files
/gemini-review src/auth/login.js src/auth/session.js
Behavior: Reviews just those two files
Review with Pattern
/gemini-review src/auth/*
Behavior: Reviews all files in src/auth/
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 · 300 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 2d7995a303b8
gemini-review is a command published in the GitHub repository bgreenwell/claude-plugins (3 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,869 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).