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/dansasser/claude-code-marketplaceWrote 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/dansasser/claude-code-marketplace/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dansasser/claude-code-marketplace/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dansasser/claude-code-marketplace/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/dansasser/claude-code-marketplace/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dansasser/claude-code-marketplace/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00932 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00373 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
Code Review with Ollama
Perform comprehensive code review using ollama agents.
Usage: /review <file_or_directory> [strictness]
Strictness Levels:
quick: Fast review, major issues onlystandard: Balanced review (default)thorough: Deep analysis with security, quality, and architecture
Examples:
/review src/auth.py- Standard review of auth module/review src/api/ thorough- Deep review of API directory/review main.py quick- Quick check
You are performing a code review by orchestrating ollama agents.
Target: $1 Strictness: ${2:-standard}
Your Process:
-
Determine Scope:
- Single file: Direct analysis via ollama-task-router
- Directory: Use directory operations for efficient review
- Large codebase: Focus on changed files or critical paths
-
Directory Operations for Reviews:
When reviewing directories, use these operations:
Strictness Directory Operations Purpose quick @./dir/:search:TODOFind obvious issues standard @./dir/:tree+@./dir/:search:FIXMEStructure + known issues thorough @./dir/:tree+ multiple:search:patternsFull analysis Example Directory Review Prompts:
Quick:
@./src/:search:TODO+@./src/:search:FIXMEStandard:@./src/:tree+@./src/:search:TODO+@./src/:search:HACKThorough:@./src/:tree+ security patterns + quality patterns -
Select Review Strategy:
Quick Review: Invoke ollama-task-router agent:
- Request: Quick code review focusing on critical bugs and security
- Target: $1
- For directories: Use
@./dir/:search:for obvious issues - Agent handles model selection and execution
Standard Review: Invoke ollama-task-router agent:
- Request: Standard code review
- Checklist: Security, quality, bugs, performance, best practices
- Target: $1
- For directories: Use
@./dir/:treefor structure +:search:for issues
Thorough Review: Invoke ollama-parallel-orchestrator agent:
- Perspectives: security, quality, architecture, testing
- Target: $1
- For directories: Each perspective uses appropriate directory operations
- Multi-angle comprehensive analysis
-
Review Checklist (for agent to cover):
- Security: Injection, XSS, auth issues, secrets in code
- Quality: Naming, structure, complexity, duplication
- Bugs: Logic errors, edge cases, error handling
- Performance: Inefficient algorithms, memory leaks
- Best Practices: Language idioms, design patterns
- Testing: Test coverage, test quality
-
Your Role:
- Invoke appropriate agent based on strictness level
- Receive agent's analysis
- Format results for user
- Prioritize findings by severity
-
Report Format:
## Code Review Summary **File/Directory:** $1 **Strictness:** ${2:-standard} ### Critical Issues (Fix Immediately) - [From agent analysis] ### Major Issues (Fix Soon) - [From agent analysis] ### Minor Issues (Consider Fixing) - [From agent analysis] ### Positive Observations - [From agent analysis] ### Recommendations - [Actionable items] -
Priority Levels:
- CRITICAL: Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks
- MAJOR: Bugs, performance issues, maintainability problems
- MINOR: Style issues, minor optimizations
Directory Review Benefits:
@./dir/:treeshows full project structure in ~500 tokens@./dir/:search:TODOfinds all incomplete work instantly@./dir/:search:FIXMElocates known issues across codebase- More comprehensive than reviewing files individually
Remember: Agents handle the heavy analysis. You orchestrate and present results clearly.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 119 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 653e08ff7de4
review is a command published in the GitHub repository dansasser/claude-code-marketplace (9 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 932 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 2026-08-31.
review compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reviewdansasser/claude-code-marketplace | Command | 9 | 6mo ago | MIT | A | 0 | Claude Code |
| diff-reviewcoco-research/coco | Command | 630 | today | Apache-2.0 | A | 11 | Claude Code |
| review-branchdamusix/atomic-claude | Command | 116 | yesterday | MIT | A | 35 | Claude Code |
| initazrtydxb/procoder | Command | 211 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 16 | Claude Code |
| refactorRchGrav/claudebox | Command | 1.2k | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 9 | Claude Code |
| spec-trace-requirementsrjmurillo/ai-agents | Command | 49 | today | MIT | A | 0 | GitHub Copilot |
| merge-conflict-analysisrjmurillo/ai-agents | Command | 49 | today | MIT | A | 0 | GitHub Copilot |