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/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude/code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-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/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude/code-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 | $0.00018 | $0.01322 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00661 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00264 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 4d 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Project context: Values in angle brackets below (e.g.
<scheme>,<JIRA_KEY>,<flag-key-enum>) are resolved at runtime — detect them from the project (xcodebuild -list -jsonfor the scheme,git/ghfor repo & owner, the branch name for the Jira key, a codebase search for flag/font files), or ask if they cannot be inferred. This plugin ships no per-project config.
Code Quality Review
You are performing a code quality review on new or modified files in the current branch.
Task
Review all new and modified Swift files (excluding test files) in the current branch, applying the principles below. Then apply the fixes.
Scope
- Identify changed files: Run
git diff --name-only HEAD~1orgit statusto find new/modified Swift source files - Read each file fully before suggesting changes
- Apply fixes incrementally, confirming each category of change
Principles to Apply
DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
- Look for duplicated code blocks, repeated patterns, or copy-pasted logic
- Extract shared behavior into helper methods or computed properties
- If 3+ lines are repeated across switch cases or conditionals, extract them
SOLID
- Single Responsibility: Each method/class should have one reason to change — one job, one concern
- Open/Closed: Classes should be open for extension but closed for modification — prefer adding computed properties to enums over external switch statements, use protocol extensions to add behavior
- Liskov Substitution: Subclasses/implementations must be substitutable for their base types without breaking behavior — don't restrict capabilities or violate contracts of the parent type
- Interface Segregation: Don't force classes to depend on interfaces they don't use — split large protocols into smaller, focused ones aligned with client needs
- Dependency Inversion: High-level modules should depend on abstractions, not concrete types — use protocols for dependencies, inject them rather than hardcoding
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 100 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 10fc19f3e1f7
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude (7 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,322 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
mobile-app-testing
Read .cursor/playwright-skills/mobile-app-testing/SKILL.md and follow its instructions exactly. Treat that file's body as your operating instructions for this task. Template files to install live in .cursor/playwright-skills/mobile-app-testing/templates/.
f5-mobile
Mobile development commands.
agent-game-developer
Dispatch hub:game-developer — Game development across all platforms (PC, Web, Mobile, VR/AR).
agent-mobile-developer
Dispatch hub:mobile-developer — Expert in React Native and Flutter mobile development.
test-integration
Write integration tests for component boundaries.
github-actions
Design, review, secure, and debug GitHub Actions workflows — reusable workflows, OIDC federation, SHA pinning, token scoping, promotion orchestration, and CI failure diagnosis.