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.
npx agentmods add commands/jayminwest/canopy/pr-reviewsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jayminwest/canopyWrote 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/jayminwest/canopy/pr-reviews)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jayminwest/canopy/pr-reviews"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jayminwest/canopy/pr-reviews.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 | $0.00003 | $0.00644 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00322 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
pr-reviews 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 5d 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
92% identical to pr-reviews — 4 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
intro
Review open pull requests for code quality, project alignment, and risks.
Argument: $ARGUMENTS — optional PR number(s) to review (e.g., 9 or 9 12 15). If empty, review all open PRs.
Steps
1. Discover PRs to review
- If
$ARGUMENTScontains PR number(s), use those - Otherwise, run
gh pr list --state open --json number,title,author,headRefName,additions,deletionsto get all open PRs - If there are no open PRs, say so and stop
2. Spawn a review team
Use the Task tool to spawn parallel agents (one per PR). Each agent should:
a. Gather context
gh pr view <number> --json title,body,author,additions,deletions,files,commits,comments,reviews,headRefName,baseRefNamegh pr diff <number>to get the full diff- Read any files touched by the PR to understand the surrounding code
b. Code quality review
- Check for correctness — does the code do what the PR claims?
- Check for bugs, edge cases, and error handling gaps
- Check adherence to project conventions (see CLAUDE.md): strict TypeScript, zero runtime deps, Biome formatting, tab indentation, 100-char line width
- Check test coverage — are new code paths tested? Do tests follow the "never mock what you can use for real" philosophy?
- Flag any security concerns (injection, unsafe input handling, etc.)
c. Project alignment review
- Does this change fit the project's architecture and direction?
- Does it follow existing patterns or introduce unnecessary new ones?
- Is the scope appropriate — does it do too much or too little?
- Are there breaking changes or backward-compatibility concerns?
d. Risk assessment
- What could go wrong if this is merged?
- Are there performance implications?
- Does it touch critical paths (config loading, prompt store, inheritance resolution, emit pipeline)?
- Are there dependency or compatibility risks?
- Could it conflict with other open PRs?
e. Produce a review summary
Each agent should return a structured review:
- PR:
#<number> — <title>by<author> - Verdict: Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion
- Summary: 2-3 sentence overview
- Strengths: What's good about this PR
- Issues: Bugs, risks, or concerns (with file:line references)
- Suggestions: Non-blocking improvements
- Project alignment: How well it fits canopy's direction
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 65 lines · 3 tokens per session scan A daf99930fa49
pr-reviews is a command published in the GitHub repository jayminwest/canopy (40 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 3 tokens to every session and 644 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to pr-reviews, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.