A command for deeply reviewing code changes against stated requirements. It checks relevant files, tests, quality gates, and the task plan, then reports findings on screen with file and line references.

Use it to review uncommitted changes or the work for a named task, including checks for formatting, linting, types, and tests.

It helps identify requirement gaps, defects, and quality problems before changes are accepted.

How Ecro/embedeval configures Claude Code

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to Ecro/embedeval. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file

curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Ecro/embedeval/main/.claude/commands/review.md

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Ecro/embedeval

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

README.md

[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ecro/embedeval/review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/ecro/embedeval/review)

Your own site

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ecro/embedeval/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ecro/embedeval/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.

Your own site · 80×15

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ecro/embedeval/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ecro/embedeval/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>

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 891 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.

Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.

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.

Model	Per session	Once invoked
Fable 5.1	$0.00000	$0.00891
Opus 5.5	$0.00000	$0.00356
Sonnet 5.5	$0.00000	$0.00178
Haiku 4.5	$0.00000	$0.00089

Measured 2mo ago against content hash 01366a0f43db, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

.claude/commands/review.md · 97 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

/review — Code review & quality check

Deep review of task changes. Step 4 of the embedeval 5-stage workflow. Reports to screen only — no ANALYSIS document.

Communication

Direct, evidence-based. Cite file:line for every finding.
Lead with critical issues, then warnings, then nits.
Before analyzing, reframe as: "Does this meet the stated requirements without issues?" — counters confirmation bias toward the author's intent.
Don't fold on pushback without new evidence.

Usage

/review [task-slug]       # review files relevant to PLAN-<slug>
/review                   # review uncommitted + last commit

Context

Repo: /home/noel/embedeval
PLAN (if slug given): plans/PLAN-<slug>.md
Standards: CLAUDE.md → "Quality Gates" and "Learned Corrections"
Quality gates to verify pass before reviewing:
- uv run ruff format --check src/
- uv run ruff check src/
- uv run mypy src/
- uv run pytest tests/

Steps

Determine scope
- Slug provided → Read PLAN; list "Affected files" and "Success criteria". Review those files plus their tests.
- No slug → git diff HEAD~1 -- ':!plans/' plus uncommitted working tree.
Run quality gates first — if any fail, report and stop. Don't review on top of a broken build.
Invoke specialized reviewers in parallel (via Task tool):
- reviewer — general code quality and correctness (always)
- walkthrough-reviewer — trace happy path, errors, edge cases through changed code (when logic changed)
- side-effect-reviewer — blast radius of API/contract changes (when exports or public APIs changed)
- test-quality-reviewer — do behavioral changes have matching tests?
- concurrency-reviewer — threading/locking touched?
- resource-lifecycle-reviewer — FD/connection/thread lifetimes touched?
Consolidate — merge reviewer outputs, dedup, rank by severity.

Focus areas

Correctness: API contracts, edge cases, off-by-one, None handling
Security: input validation, secrets, injection
Architecture: separation, coupling, cohesion
Tests: new behavior has matching tests (CLAUDE.md "new feature = new tests")
Embedeval-specific — cross-check against CLAUDE.md "Learned Corrections":
- scoped_contains scope argument explicit (not the default stripped)?
- Run-scoped artifacts written under run_dir/, not output_dir/?
- L1/L2 skipping correctly for non-compilable cases?
- L4 mutation lambdas avoid hardcoding reference literals?
- Check regex accepts API variants (k_msleep/k_sleep, printf/printk/LOG_*)?
- Pydantic v2 uses @computed_field for JSON-serialized derived fields?

Read the full file on GitHub · 97 lines

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.

2mo ago First seen · 97 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 01366a0f43db

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository Ecro/embedeval (13 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 891 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.

Code review

embedeval: Command for Claude Code

Borrowing it

Wrote this? Show the measurements

What it costs to keep this loaded

Grade A, and why

Nothing flagged

How it starts

/review — Code review & quality check

Communication

Usage

Context

Steps

Focus areas

What this file has done since we first saw it

Other commands, from other repositories

refactor

review-branch

init

spec-trace-requirements

merge-conflict-analysis

boot