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/epam/ai-dial-ui-kitWrote 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/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/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/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/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 | $0.00022 | $0.00271 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00108 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00054 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00027 |
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 25d 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
Delegate this turn to the code-reviewer subagent (defined in
.claude/agents/code-reviewer.md, which in turn defers to
agents/code-reviewer.md — the cross-harness source of truth).
Scope:
- If
$ARGUMENTSis non-empty, treat it as the review target (file path or PR reference). Otherwise, review the diff between the current branch andorigin/development(fall back toHEADif no remote tracking is set).
Steps:
- Invoke the
code-reviewersubagent via theTasktool. - Pass along
$ARGUMENTSverbatim as additional context. - Surface its three-section report (
### Summary/### Must-fix/### Nice-to-have) unchanged. - Do not edit any files in this turn. If the user asks for fixes after
reading the report, that is a separate run (a follow-up
apply-reviewmessage or manual edits).
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.
- 25d ago First seen · 26 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 001cbf6927e1
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository epam/ai-dial-ui-kit (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 271 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 2026-09-19.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-prs
Parallel PR triage: decide merge-worthiness, prepare rebased worktrees, fix blockers, return them for human merge.
pr
Open a pull request with a description generated from the diff.
ship
Pre-ship pipeline — test, review, then prepare a clean commit.
pr-shepherd
Take every open PR end-to-end — diagnose, fix mechanical failures, stop at the merge gate.
audit
Audit a window of recent commits for real defects, confirm each finding before fixing, verify every surface a fix touches, then report confirmed/dismissed/no-op with evidence. Enforces Law 4 (Verify Before Reporting).
gsd:inbox
Triage and review open GitHub issues and PRs against project templates and contribution guidelines.