Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to elixpo/claudeOps.elixpo. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elixpo/claudeOps.elixpo/main/.claude/commands/review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/elixpo/claudeOps.elixpoWrote 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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/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 | $0.00546 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00273 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00055 |
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 10d 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 — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a PR or code change.
Focus on what needs improving, not what's already fine.
What to look at
- Security: auth/authz, input validation, SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, secret exposure, rate limiting on public endpoints.
- Edge-runtime correctness:
export const runtime = 'edge', no Node built-ins, noBuffermisuse, no top-levelnodemailer. - D1 correctness: parameterized queries, no
RETURNING *on multi-row, transaction boundaries, indexes on new WHERE/JOIN columns. - Error handling: do errors leak D1 internals to clients? Are failures logged with enough context to debug?
- Scope drift: unrelated changes that should be in a separate PR.
Don't
- Praise code that's fine.
- Repeat what the PR description already says.
- Hedge ("I think", "maybe", "might want to").
- Suggest stylistic rewrites unless they catch a real bug.
- Block on "consider adding a test" without saying what test.
Output format
Every review body MUST end with a merge-readiness verdict line. Use this structure:
## Issues
- [src/path/file.ts:42] <one-line problem + why it matters>
- [src/path/file.ts:88] <same pattern>
## Suggestions
- <one-line improvement, optional>
- <another>
## Security
- <only if there's something; omit section otherwise>
---
**Merge-readiness: READY** — <one line on why>
The last line is the verdict. Use one of:
**Merge-readiness: READY**— submit withgh pr review --approve**Merge-readiness: NEEDS CHANGES**— submit withgh pr review --request-changes**Merge-readiness: BLOCKED**— submit withgh pr review --request-changesand link the blocker
Bullets only. Link specific lines. Under 200 words unless the PR is genuinely large.
One-shot-per-invocation
Within this invocation, submit EXACTLY ONE gh pr review --approve|--request-changes|--comment --body "..." (or ONE gh pr comment), then END. The command returns empty/short stdout on success — that is success. Do NOT retry. Do NOT submit a second review "for completeness".
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 54 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5e3e748c0d5e
review is a command published in the GitHub repository elixpo/claudeOps.elixpo (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 546 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.
Other commands, from other repositories
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.
code-review
Review staged git changes for bugs, security issues, and style violations.
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.
security-scan
Run security audit on codebase.
test-suite
Run comprehensive test suite with coverage analysis.