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/freema/cursor-plugin-cc/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/freema/cursor-plugin-ccWhat 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 | $0.00020 | $0.00782 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00391 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00078 |
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 2d 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
Run a read-only Cursor code review of the git diff through the shared review runtime (scripts/review.mjs).
Raw slash-command arguments:
$ARGUMENTS
Core constraint:
- This command is review-only.
- Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
- Your only job is to run the review and return Cursor's output verbatim to the user.
Execution mode rules:
- If the raw arguments include
--wait, do not ask. Run the review in the foreground. - If the raw arguments include
--background, do not ask. Run the review in the background. - Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking:
- For working-tree review, start with
git status --short --untracked-files=all. - For working-tree review, also inspect both
git diff --shortstat --cachedandgit diff --shortstat. - For base-branch review, use
git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD. - Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work for auto or working-tree review even when
git diff --shortstatis empty. - Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant scope is actually empty.
- Recommend waiting only when the review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change.
- In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background.
- When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
- For working-tree review, start with
- Then use
AskUserQuestionexactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with(Recommended):Wait for resultsRun in background
Argument handling:
- Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
- Do not strip
--waitor--backgroundyourself — pass them through untouched; the script reads them. - Do not add extra review instructions or rewrite the user's intent.
- For a steerable review that challenges the design and approach — not just implementation defects — use
/cursor:adversarial-reviewinstead. (The--adversarialflag on this command still works for backward compatibility.)
Foreground flow:
- Run:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review.mjs" --wait -- "$ARGUMENTS"
- Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is — it is a code review. Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it. If the run touched the working tree, the script surfaces a post-flight warning — keep it.
- Do not fix any issues mentioned in the review output.
Background flow:
- Run the SAME command with
--backgroundinstead of--wait, as a normal (foreground)Bashcall —review.mjsdetaches the worker itself and returns a job id immediately, so do not setrun_in_background:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review.mjs" --background -- "$ARGUMENTS"
- Present the returned job id and the
/cursor:status//cursor:resulthints exactly as printed. Do not poll or wait for completion in this turn.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 63 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 008ca90cbdbd
review is a command published in the GitHub repository freema/cursor-plugin-cc (34 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 782 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
constitution
根据交互输入或已提供原则创建或更新项目章程,并确保相关模板保持同步。.
meta-theory-verify
Run the appropriate MetaKim verification path.
cross-research
Two-phase multi-model research. Phase A fans codex+gemini in parallel (benchmarks + citations angles); Phase B synthesises via fresh Claude session. Usage: /cross-research [--with | list | compare].
ijfw-audit
Run the IJFW audit gate for the current workflow phase. Usage: /ijfw-audit [phase name].
memory-why
Show why a memory recall returned what it did -- BM25 vs vector vs hybrid provenance.
ijfw-execute
Jump directly to the IJFW workflow Execute phase (Deep D4 / Quick Q3). Usage: /ijfw-execute [task or phase name].