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/codelably/harmony-claude-codeWrote 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/codelably/harmony-claude-code/python-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/codelably/harmony-claude-code/python-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/codelably/harmony-claude-code/python-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/codelably/harmony-claude-code/python-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/codelably/harmony-claude-code/python-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 | $0.00039 | $0.02095 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00838 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00419 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00210 |
Grade A, and why
python-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 — 298 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Python 代码审查 (Python Code Review)
此命令调用 python-reviewer 智能体(Agent),进行全面的 Python 专项代码审查。
此命令的作用
- 识别 Python 变更:通过
git diff查找修改过的.py文件 - 运行静态分析:执行
ruff、mypy、pylint、black --check - 安全扫描:检查 SQL 注入、命令注入、不安全的反序列化
- 类型安全审查:分析类型提示(Type Hints)和 mypy 错误
- Pythonic 代码检查:验证代码是否符合 PEP 8 和 Python 最佳实践
- 生成报告:按严重程度(Severity)对问题进行分类
适用场景
在以下情况下使用 /python-review:
- 编写或修改 Python 代码后
- 提交 Python 变更前
- 审查包含 Python 代码的拉取请求(Pull Requests)
- 接入新的 Python 代码库时
- 学习 Pythonic 模式和惯用法时
审查类别
严重 (CRITICAL) (必须修复)
- SQL/命令注入漏洞
- 不安全的 eval/exec 使用
- Pickle 不安全的反序列化
- 硬编码凭据
- YAML 不安全的加载 (unsafe load)
- 隐藏错误的裸 except 子句
高 (HIGH) (应该修复)
- 公共函数缺失类型提示
- 可变默认参数 (Mutable default arguments)
- 静默吞掉异常
- 未对资源使用上下文管理器 (Context Managers)
- 使用 C 风格循环而非推导式 (Comprehensions)
- 使用 type() 而非 isinstance()
- 无锁状态下的竞态条件
中 (MEDIUM) (建议考虑)
- 违反 PEP 8 格式规范
- 公共函数缺失文档字符串 (Docstrings)
- 使用 print 语句而非日志 (Logging)
- 低效的字符串操作
- 无命名常量的魔术数字 (Magic numbers)
- 未使用 f-strings 进行格式化
- 不必要的列表创建
运行的自动化检查
# 类型检查
mypy .
# 代码检查与格式化
ruff check .
black --check .
isort --check-only .
# 安全扫描
bandit -r .
# 依赖审计
pip-audit
safety check
# 测试
pytest --cov=app --cov-report=term-missing
示例用法
User: /python-review
Agent:
# Python 代码审查报告
## 已审查文件
- app/routes/user.py (已修改)
- app/services/auth.py (已修改)
## 静态分析结果
✓ ruff: 无问题
✓ mypy: 无错误
⚠️ black: 2 个文件需要重新格式化
✓ bandit: 无安全问题
## 发现的问题
[CRITICAL] SQL 注入漏洞
文件: app/routes/user.py:42
问题: 用户输入直接插入到 SQL 查询中
```python
query = f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}" # 不良做法
修复: 使用参数化查询
query = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = %s" # 推荐做法
cursor.execute(query, (user_id,))
[HIGH] 可变默认参数 文件: app/services/auth.py:18 问题: 可变默认参数会导致状态共享
def process_items(items=[]): # 不良做法
items.append("new")
return items
修复: 使用 None 作为默认值
def process_items(items=None): # 推荐做法
if items is None:
items = []
items.append("new")
return items
[MEDIUM] 缺失类型提示 文件: app/services/auth.py:25 问题: 公共函数没有类型注解
def get_user(user_id): # 不良做法
return db.find(user_id)
修复: 添加类型提示
def get_user(user_id: str) -> Optional[User]: # 推荐做法
return db.find(user_id)
[MEDIUM] 未使用上下文管理器 文件: app/routes/user.py:55 问题: 异常发生时文件未关闭
f = open("config.json") # 不良做法
data = f.read()
f.close()
修复: 使用上下文管理器
with open("config.json") as f: # 推荐做法
data = f.read()
摘要
- 严重 (CRITICAL): 1
- 高 (HIGH): 1
- 中 (MEDIUM): 2
建议: ❌ 在修复严重问题前阻止合并
需要格式化
运行: black app/routes/user.py app/services/auth.py
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 · 298 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A b84389e26fee
python-review is a command published in the GitHub repository codelably/harmony-claude-code (43 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,095 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
notebook-review
Comprehensive review of Jupyter notebooks and Python scripts.
python-review
Comprehensive Python code review for PEP 8 compliance, type hints, security, and Pythonic idioms. Invokes the python-reviewer agent.
review-uv-script
Review uv Python script for PEP 723 compliance and best practices.
package-audit
Audit an entire Python package repository for best-practice compliance — systematically scans the codebase for structure, configuration, typing, testing, CI/CD, documentation, and security issues.
package-review
Review the current Python package for best-practice violations — project structure, pyproject.toml, typing, testing, CI/CD, documentation, versioning, API design, packaging, security, and developer experience.
review-react-code
A command that reviews React and TypeScript code, including how components are organised, how Hooks are used, how state is handled, and how the code performs.