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.
npx agentmods add commands/elmochilyas/laraskills/code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/elmochilyas/laraskillsWrote 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/elmochilyas/laraskills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/elmochilyas/laraskills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/elmochilyas/laraskills/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00010 | $0.00309 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00154 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00062 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
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 3d 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 Command
Usage
Review the provided Laravel code for quality, security, and adherence to project patterns.
Review Checklist
- No business logic in controllers
- No
app()orresolve()in business code (use DI) - All dependencies explicit via constructor injection
- Models use
#[Fillable]or#[Guarded]attributes - FormRequest used for validation and authorization
- Blade uses
{{ }}escaping, not{!! !!}without sanitizing - Rate limiting applied to API endpoints
- Tests achieve 80%+ coverage
- Route model binding used instead of manual
findOrFail - Architecture follows Controller → Action → Domain → Infrastructure
Severity Levels
| Level | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Security vulnerability or data loss | BLOCK - Must fix |
| HIGH | Bug or significant quality issue | WARN - Should fix |
| MEDIUM | Maintainability concern | INFO - Consider fixing |
| LOW | Style suggestion | NOTE - Optional |
References
- See skill:
laravel-patternsfor architecture patterns - See skill:
laravel-securityfor security requirements - See skill:
laravel-core-internalsfor DI and container rules - See rules/common/code-review.md for general review standards
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 39 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 6b732e7dbdc7
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository elmochilyas/laraskills (8 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 309 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.