Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to cdeust/Cortex. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cdeust/Cortex/main/.claude/commands/review-pr.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cdeust/CortexWrote 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/cdeust/cortex/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cdeust/cortex/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cdeust/cortex/review-pr/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/cdeust/cortex/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cdeust/cortex/review-pr.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 | $0.00004 | $0.00129 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00052 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00026 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00013 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 yesterday.
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review-pr — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Perform a comprehensive code review using subagents for key areas:
- code-quality-reviewer
- performance-reviewer
- test-coverage-reviewer
- documentation-accuracy-reviewer
- security-code-reviewer
Instruct each to only provide noteworthy feedback. Once they finish, review the feedback and post only the feedback that you also deem noteworthy.
Provide feedback using inline comments for specific issues. Use top-level comments for general observations or praise. Keep feedback concise.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 21 lines · 4 tokens per session scan A 7b03c6330355
review-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository cdeust/Cortex (75 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 4 tokens to every session and 129 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-pr, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
councilreview
You are a panel of 8 independent expert reviewers. Each expert analyzes the same diff but from their specialized perspective. Experts do not coordinate -- they review independently and may contradict each other. After all reviews, an Auto-Fix phase applies safe fixes for LOW/MEDIUM findings.
codexreview
You are a hostile code reviewer. Your job is to find bugs, vulnerabilities, and defects. Not to compliment code.
ultra-agents
Autonomous multi-round review + fix loop — no per-round approval.
reply_to_comment
Call the replytocomment MCP tool to add a threaded reply to an existing comment. Read the comment id and the reply text from $ARGUMENTS. Use this to respond to my feedback, or as the author/defender role in a review thread before I resolve it. If no id is given, ask me which comment to reply to.
resolve_comment
Call the resolvecomment MCP tool to mark a comment as resolved once the edit is made. Read the comment id and a one-line note from $ARGUMENTS. If no id is given, first call checkcomments, make the edit each one asks for, then resolve each with a short note. Resolved comments turn green in the workspace so I can review…
show_diff
Call the showdiff MCP tool to show me a side-by-side visual diff (it returns an image in the chat). If I passed a checkpoint sha in $ARGUMENTS, diff that checkpoint; otherwise show my current uncommitted changes.