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/intellegix/intellegix-code-agent-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/intellegix/intellegix-code-agent-toolkit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/intellegix/intellegix-code-agent-toolkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/intellegix/intellegix-code-agent-toolkit/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/intellegix/intellegix-code-agent-toolkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/intellegix/intellegix-code-agent-toolkit/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 | $0.00000 | $0.01055 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00422 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00105 |
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 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 — 192 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Review the code changes and provide detailed feedback.
Target: $ARGUMENTS
If no target specified, review staged changes: git diff --cached
Review Process
Step 1: Gather Context
-
Get the diff
# If PR number provided gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS # If file path provided git diff HEAD -- $ARGUMENTS # If no argument, staged changes git diff --cached -
Understand the context
- What is this change trying to accomplish?
- Check related issues/PRs if mentioned
- Review commit messages
Step 2: Code Quality Review
-
Check against project standards
- Follows naming conventions (see CLAUDE.md Section 1)
- Proper error handling with Result pattern
- No hardcoded values that should be config
- No commented-out code or debug statements
-
TypeScript/Python specific
- Explicit return types on exported functions
- No
anytypes (useunknownif truly needed) - Proper null/undefined handling
- Type hints on all functions (Python)
Step 3: Security Review
- Security checklist
- No secrets or credentials in code
- Input validation for external data
- Proper authentication/authorization checks
- No SQL injection vulnerabilities
- No XSS vulnerabilities (if frontend)
Step 4: Testing Review
- Test coverage
- New code has corresponding tests
- Edge cases covered
- Tests are readable and test behavior (not implementation)
- Mocks used appropriately
Step 5: Performance Review
- Performance checklist
- No obvious N+1 query issues
- Appropriate use of async/await
- No unnecessary re-renders (React)
- Large lists virtualized
- No memory leaks (cleanup in useEffect)
Step 6: Portfolio Compliance Review
- Over-engineering check
- Read
~/.claude/portfolio/PORTFOLIO.md - Is complexity appropriate for this project's tier and user count?
- Are there enterprise patterns that don't belong at this scale?
- Does the change respect phase restrictions?
- Flag over-engineering as a "Must Fix" issue.
- Read
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 · 192 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b221b64d4631
review is a command published in the GitHub repository intellegix/intellegix-code-agent-toolkit (57 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,055 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.
full-review
Orchestrate comprehensive multi-dimensional code review using specialized review agents across architecture, security, performance, testing, and best practices.
pr-enhance
Enhance a pull request with a generated description, review checklist, risk assessment, and test coverage report.
tech-debt
Analyze and remediate technical debt — inventory debt items, score by impact, and produce a prioritized remediation plan with estimated effort.
team-review
Launch a multi-reviewer parallel code review with specialized review dimensions.
qa-loop
Autonomous loop AUDIT (parallel) → VALIDATE → FIX → VERIFY → CHECK with stopping criteria.