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/guanyang/open-agent-hubWrote 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/guanyang/open-agent-hub/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/guanyang/open-agent-hub/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/guanyang/open-agent-hub/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00245 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00122 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00049 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00024 |
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 8d 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
Slash Command: /review
Core Objective
Inspect modified files in the workspace and execute a thorough code review.
Steps for the Agent
- Gather Modified Files: Run
git diff(unstaged) andgit diff --cached(staged) to identify modified files. - Load Review Guide: Read the agent-reviewer prompt template.
- Analyze Code Diffs: Evaluate all modifications against:
- Correctness & Safety.
- Security (OWASP Top 10, credential exposures).
- Performance (N+1 queries, resource leaks).
- Maintainability.
- Output Report: Present a structured report:
- 🛑 [Critical]: Blocker issues.
- ⚠️ [Warning]: Highly recommended improvements.
- 💡 [Suggestion]: Readability enhancements.
- Print the
<review-compaction>loop state.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 24 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A ac0f3387e188
review is a command published in the GitHub repository guanyang/open-agent-hub (959 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 245 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
gc
On-demand code-drift / entropy scan (garbage collection) via a fresh-context drift-analyst subagent. Checks changed/active code against golden-rules.md + generic drift heuristics (dead code, duplication, doc-drift) and reports findings with an evidence path. Read-only — recommends, never auto-refactors. Not git gc.
validate
Effectue une revue critique des modifications de code, sans modifier le code source. Verifie la coherence avec la demande et l'analyse, les bonnes pratiques et les regressions. Produit un rapport de validation (Valide/Non valide) dans l'analyse.
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
critique
Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says "what's wrong with this UI", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation.
fix-comments
Address PR review comments by implementing requested changes automatically.
widget-lint
Analyzes SAC custom widget code for performance issues, security concerns, and best practice violations.