review

A read-only review command that examines your Git diff, meaning the changes made compared with another version of the code, through a Cursor model. It reports findings and does not edit files.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review working-tree changes, staged changes, or differences between a branch and a chosen base branch.
Why use it?
It gives you a separate check for possible problems in pending code changes while leaving the files untouched.

Command

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/freema/cursor-plugin-cc/review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/freema/cursor-plugin-cc
Per session 20 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 782 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce 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

Measured 2d ago against content hash 008ca90cbdbd, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

plugins/cursor/commands/review.md · 63 lines

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 --cached and git 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 --shortstat is 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.
  • Then use AskUserQuestion exactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with (Recommended):
    • Wait for results
    • Run in background

Argument handling:

  • Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
  • Do not strip --wait or --background yourself — 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-review instead. (The --adversarial flag 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 --background instead of --wait, as a normal (foreground) Bash call — review.mjs detaches the worker itself and returns a job id immediately, so do not set run_in_background:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review.mjs" --background -- "$ARGUMENTS"
  • Present the returned job id and the /cursor:status / /cursor:result hints exactly as printed. Do not poll or wait for completion in this turn.
Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 63 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 008ca90cbdbd

Subscribe to this mod's changes

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.