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/hamr0/agentic-toolkitWrote 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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/code-review/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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/code-review.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 | $0.00040 | $0.01450 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00580 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00290 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 254 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After completing major feature
- Before merge to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing complex bug
How to Request
1. Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:
Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md
Placeholders:
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}- What you just built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}- What it should do{BASE_SHA}- Starting commit{HEAD_SHA}- Ending commit{DESCRIPTION}- Brief summary
3. Act on feedback:
- Fix Critical issues immediately
- Fix Important issues before proceeding
- Note Minor issues for later
- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
Example
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
[Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
[Subagent returns]:
Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
Issues:
Important: Missing progress indicators
Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
Assessment: Ready to proceed
You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]
Integration with Workflows
Subagent-Driven Development:
- Review after EACH task
- Catch issues before they compound
- Fix before moving to next task
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 · 254 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A d1b076f9eb6b
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository hamr0/agentic-toolkit (22 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,450 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
delegate-review
Run OCR in delegation mode — OCR handles file selection and rules, the host agent performs the actual review.
review.v1
Review code changes: /review [commit|branch|PR].
review-team
Parallel code review with 3 specialist lenses plus the kit-default kit:advisor extra lens. Dispatches the security, architecture, and test-coverage lenses simultaneously, adds the cross-cutting kit:advisor (critique mode), then merges findings.
devs-team
Parallel multi-lens critique of a solution design (the active spec if present, else the decision brief). Dispatches 5 engineering lenses, merges findings, reports a verdict. Report-only, never blocks.
branch-review
Review a branch before merge.
bug-check
Run automated tests and build checks first, then agent code review. For each bug found, propose or document a regression test.