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/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kitWrote 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/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/detailed-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/detailed-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/detailed-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/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/detailed-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/detailed-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 | $0.00012 | $0.00950 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00475 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
detailed-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 9d 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 — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Detailed Code Review
💡 For quick reviews, use Claude Code's built-in
/reviewThis command provides a more structured, checklist-based review.
Review code changes: $ARGUMENTS
Target Selection
If $ARGUMENTS is empty:
# Review staged changes
git diff --cached
If $ARGUMENTS is --branch or --pr:
# Review all changes in current branch vs main
git diff main...HEAD
If $ARGUMENTS is a file path:
- Review that specific file
If $ARGUMENTS is a PR number (e.g., #123):
gh pr diff 123
Review Checklist
🏗️ Architecture & Design
- Changes align with project architecture (see CLAUDE.md)
- No unnecessary coupling between modules
- Appropriate separation of concerns
- Follows existing patterns in the codebase
🐛 Correctness
- Logic is correct and handles all cases
- Edge cases are handled (null, empty, boundary values)
- Error handling is appropriate
- No off-by-one errors
- Async operations handled correctly
🛡️ Security
- No hardcoded secrets or credentials
- User input is validated and sanitized
- No SQL injection vulnerabilities
- Authentication/authorization checked where needed
- Sensitive data not logged
⚡ Performance
- No obvious N+1 queries
- Appropriate use of caching
- No unnecessary loops or iterations
- Large data sets handled efficiently
- No blocking operations in async code
📖 Readability & Maintainability
- Clear, descriptive variable/function names
- Complex logic has comments explaining "why"
- No magic numbers (use constants)
- Functions are focused (single responsibility)
- Code is not overly clever
🧪 Testing
- New code has corresponding tests
- Tests cover happy path and edge cases
- Tests are meaningful (not just coverage padding)
- No flaky tests introduced
📝 Documentation
- Public APIs have docstrings/JSDoc
- README updated if needed
- Breaking changes documented
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 156 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A a917430bf726
detailed-review is a command published in the GitHub repository dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit (4 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 950 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
sonar
A command for running SonarQube, a tool that examines source code for quality and security problems. It can show current results, rerun the analysis, inspect security hotspots, check test coverage, and explain quality-gate results.
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
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.
discovery
Systematic quality discovery and issue detection.