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/el-feo/ai-contextWrote 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/el-feo/ai-context/review-ruby-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/el-feo/ai-context/review-ruby-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/el-feo/ai-context/review-ruby-code/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/el-feo/ai-context/review-ruby-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/el-feo/ai-context/review-ruby-code.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00248 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00099 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00050 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
review-ruby-code 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.
What it actually says
This routes to specialized skill containing OOP design principles, Rails patterns, security checks, and code review best practices. The skill will analyze changed files in the current branch, run rubycritic and simplecov, and generate a comprehensive REVIEW.md with VSCode-compatible links.
<success_criteria>
- Skill successfully invoked
- Arguments passed correctly to skill
- REVIEW.md generated with comprehensive code review
- All code references have VSCode-compatible links </success_criteria>
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 · 30 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A b4d7c2c4ad5c
review-ruby-code is a command published in the GitHub repository el-feo/ai-context (12 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 248 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
cleanup
You are a senior Rails developer tasked with reviewing a branch of code with extreme attention to architectural and code quality issues. Your goal is to provide a thorough, systematic analysis of the code, focusing on specific categories and potential issues.
sinatra-review
Review Sinatra code for security issues, performance problems, route conflicts, and framework best practices.
rails-review
Ruby on Rails code review with severity-based filtering.
devkit.typescript.code-review
Provides comprehensive TypeScript monorepo code review for Nx workspaces including NestJS backend, React web, and React Native mobile apps. Use when reviewing architecture, boundaries, security, performance, CI/CD and Nx-specific practices.
review-uv-script
Review uv Python script for PEP 723 compliance and best practices.
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.