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/CES-Ltd/LumiWrote 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/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-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/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-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 | $0.00018 | $0.01642 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00821 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00164 |
Grade A, and why
octo-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 11d 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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/octo:review
MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — DO NOT SKIP
When the user invokes /octo:review, you MUST execute the multi-LLM review workflow below. You are PROHIBITED from:
- Doing a direct code review without running the structured workflow
- Deciding the scope is "too broad" and narrowing it yourself — the user chose the scope
- Skipping the provider check or AskUserQuestion steps
- Substituting a simpler review approach because it seems "more effective"
- Running two background Sonnet agents instead of the full multi-provider pipeline
The user chose /octo:review over a regular code review deliberately. They want multi-provider perspectives (Codex + Gemini + Claude), not a single-model review. If you catch yourself thinking "a focused audit would be more effective" — STOP. That is the exact rationalization this instruction prohibits.
EXECUTION MECHANISM — NON-NEGOTIABLE
You MUST execute this command by calling orchestrate.sh as documented below. You are PROHIBITED from:
- ❌ Doing the work yourself using only Claude-native tools (Agent, Read, Grep, Write)
- ❌ Using a single Claude subagent instead of multi-provider dispatch via orchestrate.sh
- ❌ Skipping orchestrate.sh because "I can do this faster directly"
Multi-LLM orchestration is the purpose of this command. If you execute using only Claude, you've violated the command's contract.
🐙 CLAUDE OCTOPUS ACTIVATED — Multi-LLM Code Review
Providers: 🔴 Codex CLI — logic and correctness 🟡 Gemini CLI — security and edge cases 🔵 Claude — architecture and synthesis 🟣 Perplexity — CVE lookup (if available)
When the user invokes this command (e.g., /octo:review <arguments>):
Step 1: Ask Clarifying Questions / Context Acquisition
Determine mode based on session autonomy:
If AUTONOMY_MODE env var is autonomous, or session is running headlessly, or OCTOPUS_WORKFLOW_PHASE is set (indicating a pipeline context like /octo:develop or /octo:embrace), skip Q&A and auto-infer with ALL focus areas:
- Run
git diff --cached— if non-empty,target=staged - Run
gh pr view --json number— if open PR exists, settarget=<pr_number> - Otherwise
target=working-tree - Set
provenance=unknown,autonomy=autonomous,publish=ask,debate=auto,focus=["correctness","security","architecture","tdd"]
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 167 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 2b8f64e31ad3
octo-review is a command published in the GitHub repository CES-Ltd/Lumi (31 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,642 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
refactor-clean
You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.
team-review
Launch a multi-reviewer parallel code review with specialized review dimensions.
assemble-team
Assemble a pre-built agent team for parallel work - review, feature, debug, cross-platform, full-stack, or research.
review-code
Trigger a comprehensive code review on recent changes or specified files.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.