review

review is a command for Claude Code from jketreno/clare. It costs 29 tokens per session (4,729 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-review command that compares the current branch with a suitable base branch, then checks the changes for correctness, security, maintainability, tests, and documentation.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review a pull request or branch, identify problems by priority, and suggest fixes across code, tests, security, and documentation.
Why use it?
It provides a repeatable review of the actual changes and their surrounding code instead of relying on guesses or a quick glance.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: installed under .claude/.

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/jketreno/clare/review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jketreno/clare

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jketreno/clare/review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/jketreno/clare/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jketreno/clare/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jketreno/clare/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 29 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 4,729 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00029 $0.04729
Opus 5 $0.00015 $0.02364
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00946
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00473

Measured 6d ago against content hash c4487fee22b9, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-06, from the pricing page.

Security

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 6d 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.

.claude/commands/review.md · 285 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 285 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Review Diff vs. Base Ref

Scope and Baseline

Review all changes on the current branch against an appropriate base ref — as if performing a thorough pull-request code review. Do not guess at correctness; read the actual diff and the relevant file context.


Step 1 — Determine the Base Ref

Resolve the base ref in priority order. Use the first one that succeeds:

  1. User-specified — if the user says "review vs main", "against origin/staging", etc., use that ref.
  2. Upstream tracking branchgit rev-parse --verify "upstream/$(git symbolic-ref --short HEAD 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null
  3. Origin tracking branch (same name)git rev-parse --verify "origin/$(git symbolic-ref --short HEAD 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null
  4. origin/maingit rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null
  5. origin/mastergit rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null
  6. Local maingit rev-parse --verify main 2>/dev/null
  7. Ask — if none resolve, say: "I couldn't determine a base branch. What should I diff against?"

Step 2 — Gather the Diff

# Unified diff from merge base (PR semantics — use triple-dot)
git diff <BASE_REF>...HEAD

# File summary (what changed at a glance)
git diff --stat <BASE_REF>...HEAD

# Untracked new files not yet committed
git status --short

Read the complete diff before beginning the review. Do not review hunks in isolation.


Step 3 — Load File Context

For every file that appears in the diff, read the full file — not just the changed hunks. This is required to:

  • Detect misuse of a new or changed API by its callers
  • Verify that error handling is consistent with the rest of the file
  • Identify invariants that the changed code may break
  • Confirm that imports, exports, and type signatures are consistent

Review Checklist

Apply every category below to every changed file. Do not skip a category because the change looks small — subtle bugs hide in small diffs.


1. Correctness & Logic

Read the full file on GitHub · 285 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 6d ago First seen · 285 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A c4487fee22b9

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository jketreno/clare (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 4,729 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.