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/Fmarzochi/EGCWrote 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/fmarzochi/egc/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/fmarzochi/egc/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fmarzochi/egc/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/fmarzochi/egc/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fmarzochi/egc/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 | $0.00010 | $0.00393 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00157 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00039 |
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 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to code-review — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Code Review Command
Review code changes for quality, security, and maintainability: $ARGUMENTS
Your Task
- Get changed files: Run
git diff --name-only HEAD - Analyze each file for issues
- Generate structured report
- Provide actionable recommendations
Check Categories
Security Issues (CRITICAL)
- Hardcoded credentials, API keys, tokens
- SQL injection vulnerabilities
- XSS vulnerabilities
- Missing input validation
- Insecure dependencies
- Path traversal risks
- Authentication/authorization flaws
Code Quality (HIGH)
- Functions > 50 lines
- Files > 800 lines
- Nesting depth > 4 levels
- Missing error handling
- console.log statements
- TODO/FIXME comments
- Missing JSDoc for public APIs
Best Practices (MEDIUM)
- Mutation patterns (use immutable instead)
- Unnecessary complexity
- Missing tests for new code
- Accessibility issues (a11y)
- Performance concerns
Style (LOW)
- Inconsistent naming
- Missing type annotations
- Formatting issues
Report Format
For each issue found:
**[SEVERITY]** file.ts:123
Issue: [Description]
Fix: [How to fix]
Decision
- CRITICAL or HIGH issues: Block commit, require fixes
- MEDIUM issues: Recommend fixes before merge
- LOW issues: Optional improvements
IMPORTANT: Never approve code with security vulnerabilities!
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 · 69 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 5846bc410958
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Fmarzochi/EGC (67 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 393 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to code-review, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
review
A command that reviews code changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.
review-decide
Resolve a circuit breaker in the review loop. Accepts exactly one argument: approve, reject, or retry.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
Extremely strict maintainability review hunting for code-judo simplifications, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth.
start
Read and follow the skill at .cursor/skills/start/SKILL.md.
review-code
Perform comprehensive code quality review including standards, security, maintainability, and best practices validation.
code-simplify
Simplify code for clarity and maintainability — reduce complexity without changing behavior.