code-review

code-review is a command for Claude Code from Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar. It costs 0 tokens per session (276 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review procedure for uncommitted code changes that checks for security problems, quality issues, and common coding mistakes. It produces findings with severity levels, file locations, line numbers, and suggested fixes.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to inspect changed files for leaked credentials, injection risks, missing validation, weak error handling, missing tests, and other listed issues.
Why use it?
It helps catch vulnerabilities and maintainability problems before changes are committed to version control. Critical and high-severity findings are intended to block the commit.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the claude-scholar plugin — 45 skills, 34 commands, 6 agents, 5 hooks shipped together

About the project

Claude Scholar is a semi-automated research assistant for academic research and software development, supporting literature review, coding, experiments, reporting, writing, and project knowledge management. Computer science and AI researchers use it across the research workflow with several coding-agent platforms; the catalogue contains its skills, commands, agents, hooks, plugin, and instruction.

Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar · 5,326 stars · on GitHub

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/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install claude-scholar, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 45 skills, 34 commands, 6 agents, 5 hooks.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/code-review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/code-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 276 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 5.1 $0.00000 $0.00276
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.00138
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00055
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00028

Measured 6d ago against content hash 60818aa4fab4, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-05, from the pricing page.

Security

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 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.

commands/code-review.md · 44 lines

What it actually says

Code Review

Comprehensive security and quality review of uncommitted changes:

  1. Get changed files: git diff --name-only HEAD

  2. For each changed file, check for:

Security Issues (CRITICAL):

  • Hardcoded credentials, API keys, tokens
  • SQL injection vulnerabilities
  • XSS vulnerabilities
  • Missing input validation
  • Insecure dependencies
  • Path traversal risks
  • Insecure deserialization (pickle)

Code Quality (HIGH):

  • Functions > 50 lines
  • Files > 800 lines
  • Nesting depth > 4 levels
  • Missing error handling (try/except)
  • print() statements in production
  • TODO/FIXME comments without tickets
  • Missing docstrings for public APIs
  • Missing type hints (Python 3.6+)

Best Practices (MEDIUM):

  • Mutable default arguments
  • Emoji usage in code/comments
  • Missing tests for new code
  • Missing if __name__ == "__main__" guards
  • Unused imports (detect with ruff/pyflakes)
  1. Generate report with:

    • Severity: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW
    • File location and line numbers
    • Issue description
    • Suggested fix
  2. Block commit if CRITICAL or HIGH issues found

Never approve code with security vulnerabilities!

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. 6d ago First seen · 44 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 60818aa4fab4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar (5,326 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 276 tokens. 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.