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/HermeticOrmus/claude-code-game-developmentWrote 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/hermeticormus/claude-code-game-development/full-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hermeticormus/claude-code-game-development/full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hermeticormus/claude-code-game-development/full-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 | $0.00000 | $0.01748 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00874 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00350 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00175 |
Grade A, and why
full-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 4d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to full-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Orchestrate comprehensive multi-dimensional code review using specialized review agents
[Extended thinking: This workflow performs an exhaustive code review by orchestrating multiple specialized agents in sequential phases. Each phase builds upon previous findings to create a comprehensive review that covers code quality, security, performance, testing, documentation, and best practices. The workflow integrates modern AI-assisted review tools, static analysis, security scanning, and automated quality metrics. Results are consolidated into actionable feedback with clear prioritization and remediation guidance. The phased approach ensures thorough coverage while maintaining efficiency through parallel agent execution where appropriate.]
Review Configuration Options
- --security-focus: Prioritize security vulnerabilities and OWASP compliance
- --performance-critical: Emphasize performance bottlenecks and scalability issues
- --tdd-review: Include TDD compliance and test-first verification
- --ai-assisted: Enable AI-powered review tools (Copilot, Codium, Bito)
- --strict-mode: Fail review on any critical issues found
- --metrics-report: Generate detailed quality metrics dashboard
- --framework [name]: Apply framework-specific best practices (React, Spring, Django, etc.)
Phase 1: Code Quality & Architecture Review
Use Task tool to orchestrate quality and architecture agents in parallel:
1A. Code Quality Analysis
- Use Task tool with subagent_type="code-reviewer"
- Prompt: "Perform comprehensive code quality review for: $ARGUMENTS. Analyze code complexity, maintainability index, technical debt, code duplication, naming conventions, and adherence to Clean Code principles. Integrate with SonarQube, CodeQL, and Semgrep for static analysis. Check for code smells, anti-patterns, and violations of SOLID principles. Generate cyclomatic complexity metrics and identify refactoring opportunities."
- Expected output: Quality metrics, code smell inventory, refactoring recommendations
- Context: Initial codebase analysis, no dependencies on other phases
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 124 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 6bd7da82ad2c
full-review is a command published in the GitHub repository HermeticOrmus/claude-code-game-development (62 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,748 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to full-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
check-architecture
Angular Architecture Review.
announce
Draft X/Twitter announcement post (or thread) for the latest plugin release.
ia-agent-native-audit
Score each of the 5 agent-native principles (parity, granularity, composability, emergent capability, improvement-over-time) against a codebase and report gaps.
audio-pass
Functional audio review for implementation, mix coverage, clarity, and player feedback.
cert-check
Review the current state against certification and platform compliance expectations.
code-review
Review staged git changes for bugs, security issues, and style violations.