code-review

A command that reviews uncommitted code changes for security, quality, maintainability, performance, testing, and accessibility issues. It reports each finding with a severity, file location, explanation, and suggested fix.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to inspect changed files for leaked credentials, injection, missing validation, unsafe dependencies, oversized functions or files, poor error handling, missing tests, inefficient code, and accessibility problems.
Why use it?
It gives developers a focused checklist before committing and can block a commit when it finds critical or high-severity problems.

Command

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/codelably/harmony-claude-code/code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/codelably/harmony-claude-code
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 359 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00000 $0.00359
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.00179
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00072
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00036

Measured yesterday against content hash c084c08ce464, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 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.

commands/code-review.md · 41 lines

What it actually says

代码审查 (Code Review)

对未提交的更改进行全面的安全和质量审查:

  1. 获取已更改的文件:git diff --name-only HEAD

  2. 对每个更改的文件,检查以下项:

安全问题 (Security Issues) (严重 - CRITICAL):

  • 硬编码的凭据、API 密钥、令牌 (Tokens)
  • SQL 注入漏洞
  • XSS 漏洞
  • 缺少输入验证
  • 不安全的依赖项
  • 路径遍历风险

代码质量 (Code Quality) (高 - HIGH):

  • 函数长度 > 50 行
  • 文件长度 > 800 行
  • 嵌套深度 > 4 层
  • 缺少错误处理
  • console.log 语句
  • TODO/FIXME 注释
  • 公共 API 缺少 JSDoc

最佳实践 (Best Practices) (中 - MEDIUM):

  • 变更模式 (Mutation patterns)(应改用不可变模式 (immutable))
  • 代码/注释中使用 Emoji
  • 新代码缺少测试
  • 无障碍访问问题 (a11y)
  1. 生成包含以下内容的报告:

    • 严重程度 (Severity):严重 (CRITICAL)、高 (HIGH)、中 (MEDIUM)、低 (LOW)
    • 文件位置和行号
    • 问题描述
    • 修复建议
  2. 如果发现“严重 (CRITICAL)”或“高 (HIGH)”级别的问题,则阻止提交 (Block commit)

绝不要批准带有安全漏洞的代码!

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 41 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c084c08ce464

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository codelably/harmony-claude-code (42 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 359 tokens. 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.