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/dgalarza/claude-code-workflowsWrote 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/dgalarza/claude-code-workflows/full-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dgalarza/claude-code-workflows/full-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dgalarza/claude-code-workflows/full-code-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/dgalarza/claude-code-workflows/full-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dgalarza/claude-code-workflows/full-code-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 | $0.00831 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00332 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
full-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 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 — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Full Code Review
Perform a comprehensive code review using parallel specialized subagents for security analysis and Rails best practices review. Incorporates previous review decisions to avoid redundant suggestions.
Instructions
You will launch TWO specialized subagents in parallel using the Task tool for comprehensive coverage:
-
Check Previous Decisions:
First, search memory for previous code review decisions and read the decision log:
mcp__memory__search_nodes query:"code_review_decision" Read file: code_review_decisions.md -
Launch Parallel Subagents:
Use the Task tool to create TWO subagents simultaneously:
Subagent 1: Security Review Specialist
- Get the diff: Run
git diff main...HEAD(orgit diff $ARGUMENTS...HEADif branch specified) - Security Analysis Focus:
- Multi-tenant security (acts_as_tenant data segregation)
- Control plane security for cross-tenant operations
- Authentication and authorization vulnerabilities
- Input validation and injection vulnerabilities
- Sensitive data exposure and credential management
- Rate limiting and access controls
- OWASP Top 10 compliance
- Rails-specific security patterns
- Return: Detailed security findings with file:line references, categorized by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
Subagent 2: Rails Best Practices Specialist
- Get the diff: Run
git diff main...HEAD(orgit diff $ARGUMENTS...HEADif branch specified) - Rails & Code Quality Focus:
- Rails conventions and RESTful design
- POODR principles and object-oriented design
- Service object patterns and Result usage
- Ruby idioms and code clarity
- Test quality and patterns (no SUT stubbing)
- Performance considerations (N+1 queries, etc.)
- Dependency management and coupling
- Return: Detailed code quality findings with file:line references, categorized by priority (High, Medium, Low)
- Get the diff: Run
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 108 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 49503dd761e5
full-code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository dgalarza/claude-code-workflows (62 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 831 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.