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/kotlin-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/fmarzochi/egc/kotlin-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fmarzochi/egc/kotlin-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/kotlin-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fmarzochi/egc/kotlin-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 | $0.00027 | $0.00866 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00433 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
kotlin-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 6d 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
86% identical to kotlin-review — 19 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Kotlin Code Review
This command invokes the kotlin-reviewer agent for comprehensive Kotlin-specific code review.
What This Command Does
- Identify Kotlin Changes: Find modified
.ktand.ktsfiles viagit diff - Run Build & Static Analysis: Execute
./gradlew build,detekt,ktlintCheck - Security Scan: Check for SQL injection, command injection, hardcoded secrets
- Null Safety Review: Analyze
!!usage, platform type handling, unsafe casts - Coroutine Review: Check structured concurrency, dispatcher usage, cancellation
- Generate Report: Categorize issues by severity
When to Use
Use /kotlin-review when:
- After writing or modifying Kotlin code
- Before committing Kotlin changes
- Reviewing pull requests with Kotlin code
- Onboarding to a new Kotlin codebase
- Learning idiomatic Kotlin patterns
Review Categories
CRITICAL (Must Fix)
- SQL/Command injection vulnerabilities
- Force-unwrap
!!without justification - Platform type null safety violations
- GlobalScope usage (structured concurrency violation)
- Hardcoded credentials
- Unsafe deserialization
HIGH (Should Fix)
- Mutable state where immutable suffices
- Blocking calls inside coroutine context
- Missing cancellation checks in long loops
- Non-exhaustive
whenon sealed types - Large functions (>50 lines)
- Deep nesting (>4 levels)
MEDIUM (Consider)
- Non-idiomatic Kotlin (Java-style patterns)
- Missing trailing commas
- Scope function misuse or nesting
- Missing sequence for large collection chains
- Redundant explicit types
Automated Checks Run
# Build check
./gradlew build
# Static analysis
./gradlew detekt
# Formatting check
./gradlew ktlintCheck
# Tests
./gradlew test
Example Usage
User: /kotlin-review
Agent:
# Kotlin Code Review Report
## Files Reviewed
- src/main/kotlin/com/example/service/UserService.kt (modified)
- src/main/kotlin/com/example/routes/UserRoutes.kt (modified)
## Static Analysis Results
✓ Build: Successful
✓ detekt: No issues
WARNING: ktlint: 2 formatting warnings
## Issues Found
[CRITICAL] Force-Unwrap Null Safety
File: src/main/kotlin/com/example/service/UserService.kt:28
Issue: Using !! on nullable repository result
```kotlin
val user = repository.findById(id)!! // NPE risk
```
Fix: Use safe call with error handling
```kotlin
val user = repository.findById(id)
?: throw UserNotFoundException("User $id not found")
```
[HIGH] GlobalScope Usage
File: src/main/kotlin/com/example/routes/UserRoutes.kt:45
Issue: Using GlobalScope breaks structured concurrency
```kotlin
GlobalScope.launch {
notificationService.sendWelcome(user)
}
```
Fix: Use the call's coroutine scope
```kotlin
launch {
notificationService.sendWelcome(user)
}
```
## Summary
- CRITICAL: 1
- HIGH: 1
- MEDIUM: 0
Recommendation: FAIL: Block merge until CRITICAL issue is fixed
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 141 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A cf5fe5b30185
kotlin-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Fmarzochi/EGC (51 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 866 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to kotlin-review, differing in 19 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
Extremely strict maintainability review hunting for code-judo simplifications, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth.
code-simplify
A code-review command that simplifies recently changed code or another chosen scope while preserving its behavior.
review
A command that reviews code changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.
pr-review
Review a GitHub pull request: analyzes changed files to select relevant reviewers, loads project and user memory, runs reviewers in parallel, lets the user pick which findings to post, then submits the review on behalf of the user via gh CLI.
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.