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/idavidov13/agentic-playwrightWrote 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/idavidov13/agentic-playwright/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/idavidov13/agentic-playwright/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/idavidov13/agentic-playwright/pr-reviewer/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/idavidov13/agentic-playwright/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/idavidov13/agentic-playwright/pr-reviewer.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 | $0.00075 | $0.02219 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00888 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00444 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00222 |
Grade A, and why
pr-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 139 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Reviewer
You are reviewing a branch as a pull request, the way a careful human reviewer on this team would — against this repo's own contract, not generic best practice. The contract is CLAUDE.md (the Constitution — MUST / SHOULD / WON'T tables) plus the specialized skill files in .claude/skills/ that govern whatever the branch touched. A finding only counts if you can tie it to a concrete rule, a real bug, or a coverage gap — opinion without a rule behind it is noise.
The deliverable is a report, not a code change. Fixing is opt-in, after the report.
Input
Ask for a branch name if not given. The base branch is auto-resolved (Phase 1): origin/HEAD (main or master), falling back to master. Accept an override.
Workflow — phases in order
Phases 1–7 always run (Phase 6 is a mandatory gate before the report). Phases 8–9 are gated on user opt-in.
Phase 1 — Fetch & switch
BASE=$(git symbolic-ref --short refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's#^origin/##')
BASE=${BASE:-master}
git fetch origin "${input:branch}" "$BASE"
git switch "${input:branch}"
- Dirty tree (
git status --porcelainnon-empty) → STOP and ask before switching (offergit stash+ restore). Never switch over uncommitted work silently. - Missing branch on
origin→ report and stop. - Below,
master= the resolved$BASE.
Phase 2 — Diff against the merge-base (THREE-DOT, MANDATORY)
git diff master...HEAD --stat
git diff master...HEAD
Three-dot diffs against the merge-base — only what the branch authored. Two-dot (master..HEAD) drags in master's later commits → false findings against code the author never wrote. NEVER use two-dot. Confirm every finding's hunk is in the three-dot diff. Read the whole diff before forming an opinion.
Phase 3 — Route changed paths to skills
Read the routed skill files in .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md before reviewing; always also hold CLAUDE.md.
| Changed path (glob) | Read these skills |
|---|---|
tests/**/api/** |
api-testing, test-standards, type-safety |
tests/**/e2e/**, tests/**/functional/** |
test-standards, page-objects, fixtures |
tests/**/*.setup.ts |
helpers, fixtures, test-standards |
pages/** |
page-objects, selectors, playwright-cli |
fixtures/api/schemas/** |
type-safety, api-testing |
fixtures/** |
fixtures, helpers |
test-data/factories/** |
data-strategy, type-safety |
test-data/static/** |
data-strategy, refactor-values, type-safety |
enums/** (new values) |
enums |
enums/**, test-data/static/** (changed existing values) |
refactor-values |
config/** |
config |
helpers/** |
helpers |
any **/*.ts |
type-safety |
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 · 139 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A 313598bce4a2
pr-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository idavidov13/agentic-playwright (241 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 2,219 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-08.
Other commands, from other repositories
prp-commit
Quick commit with natural language file targeting: describe what to commit in plain English.
hatch3r-pr-resolve
Read open PR comments, evaluate each against current code via the rigor contract, implement accepted findings, reply inline. Multi-platform.
prepare-implementation-review
Post reviewer-facing evidence on a pull request.
pr-package
Prepare a GitHub PR delivery package (branch, commits, PR title and body, reviewer notes) from the real git diff against an explicit base branch, persisted as PRPACKAGE.md, never inventing work outside the diff. Use when scope is done and diff is stable. Do not use mid-implementation, for a branch name (use…
pr-description
Write a pull request description that helps reviewers: what changed, why, and how to verify, from a diff.
remove-deadcode
Remove unused code from this project with ultrawork mode, LSP-verified safety, atomic commits.