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/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-pluginsWrote 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/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/py-review-code-structure)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/py-review-code-structure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/py-review-code-structure/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/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/py-review-code-structure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins/py-review-code-structure.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00373 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00149 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00037 |
Grade A, and why
py-review-code-structure 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.
What it actually says
Perform a Python code review on the provided code. Accept input in any of following forms:
- A working directory path (analyze git diff in that directory)
- A Git commit reference (analyze changes in that commit)
- A list of Python file paths (analyze those files)
- A planning document (analyze the Python files in the plan)
Review the code focusing on these two criteria:
1. Type Annotations
- Methods and functions should have type annotations on parameters and return types
- Don't over-type: basic operations and obvious cases don't need extensive annotations
- Flag missing annotations on public methods and functions with non-obvious signatures
- Local helper functions and simple internal methods may not need annotations if context is clear
- Annotate complex parameter types (dicts, lists of objects, unions)
2. Import Organization
- All imports must be at the top of the file (after module docstring if present)
- Inline imports (imports appearing mid-file) should be moved to the top UNLESS they have an inline comment explaining why (e.g., # circular import, # lazy load, # conditional)
- Flag any inline imports without explanation and move them to the top
- Don't reorganize import groups - isort handles that
Output Format: For each file reviewed, provide:
- File: filename
- Typing Issues: List missing or problematic type annotations (or "None" if clear)
- Import Issues: List inline imports found and moved (or "None" if correct)
- Summary: Brief assessment of the file's adherence to standards
At the end, provide:
- Overall Assessment: How many files pass review / total files
- Key Recommendations: Top 3-5 items to address across all files
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 · 32 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 3cba66660e5b
py-review-code-structure is a command published in the GitHub repository galaxyproject/claude-galaxy-plugins (4 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 373 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
notebook-review
Comprehensive review of Jupyter notebooks and Python scripts.
python-review
Comprehensive Python code review for PEP 8 compliance, type hints, security, and Pythonic idioms. Invokes the python-reviewer agent.
review-uv-script
Review uv Python script for PEP 723 compliance and best practices.
package-audit
Audit an entire Python package repository for best-practice compliance — systematically scans the codebase for structure, configuration, typing, testing, CI/CD, documentation, and security issues.
package-review
Review the current Python package for best-practice violations — project structure, pyproject.toml, typing, testing, CI/CD, documentation, versioning, API design, packaging, security, and developer experience.
review-react-code
A command that reviews React and TypeScript code, including how components are organised, how Hooks are used, how state is handled, and how the code performs.