p5-review

p5-review is a command for coding agents from jonase47/ccpr. It costs 0 tokens per session (928 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

Conducts a structured code review: first code quality, then security. Each dimension is its own sub-skill.

Command

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/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jonase47/ccpr

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 p5-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 928 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin unknown 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 $0.00000 $0.00928
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.00464
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00186
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00093

Measured today against content hash d0bf7045625b, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

p5-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 today.

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.

commands/p5-review.md · 74 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

/p5-review – Code Review

Conducts a structured code review: first code quality, then security. Each dimension is its own sub-skill.

Argument: $ARGUMENTS = [File/module/feature name]

If provided: Review the named code area. If not provided: resolve the story via the work-item adoption guard below (falls back to reading SPRINT.md and asking, if the project is still on prose).

0. Work-item adoption guard (ADR-0002 §8)

Run python3 ~/.claude/scripts/workitems.py list and explicitly check whether the docs/workitems/ directory exists (e.g. ls docs/workitems/). Both signals are required — list returns the identical [] for an adopted-but-empty store and a never-adopted project; only the directory's existence tells them apart.

  • Non-empty list → the project uses the structured store. Use the CLI for all item state below:
    • No $ARGUMENTS: resolve the story via workitems list --status "In Review", pick the first item in the returned array, ask for confirmation.
    • $ARGUMENTS provided: resolve <id> by matching $ARGUMENTS against a story's title, or directly if it looks like a Work-Item id (WI-NNNN) from BACKLOG.md/SPRINT.md, then confirm the resolved item with the user before proceeding.
  • Empty list, but docs/workitems/ exists → the store is adopted; an empty In Review list is a real result — nothing is currently awaiting code review (not an error, not a reason to search prose instead). If no $ARGUMENTS was given either, say so explicitly and ask the user which story to review, rather than silently falling back to SPRINT.md.
  • Empty list and no docs/workitems/ directory → not adopted, still on prose. Read SPRINT.md to find/ask which story is next, as before. Emit one line: "Tip: run lift to adopt the structured work-item store."

See Manual/WORKITEMS.md §8 for the full guard rationale, the directory-check requirement, and the status-verb mapping.

Flow

1. Check code quality

/p5-review-code $ARGUMENTS – Checks clean code, logic, tests, architecture conformity.

Read the full file on GitHub · 74 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. today First seen · 74 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A d0bf7045625b

Subscribe to this mod's changes

p5-review is a command published in the GitHub repository jonase47/ccpr (1 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 928 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 2026-09-03.