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/jonase47/ccprWrote 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/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review-code/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/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jonase47/ccpr/p5-review-code.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 | $0.00566 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00226 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
p5-review-code 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/p5-review-code – Check Code Quality
Checks code for quality, clean code, logic errors and test coverage. Delivers review findings with severity level.
Argument: $ARGUMENTS = [File/module/feature name]
If provided: Review the named code area. If not provided: Ask which code should be reviewed.
Prerequisites
- Feature implemented (after
/p5-impl-refactoror directly after implementation)
Agent
- Type: code-reviewer
- Model: sonnet
Context (Orchestrator prepares)
Orchestrator reads beforehand and provides inline:
- From src/: the code to be reviewed (affected files/functions only)
- From tests/: the corresponding tests
- From ARCHITECTURE.md: relevant architecture guidelines (affected section only)
Prompt Template
Goal: Code review for: [Feature/Module]
Code: [inline from src/]
Tests: [inline from tests/]
Output Format: Table with max. 15 findings:
# Severity Area Finding Suggestion 1 CRITICAL/HIGH/NOTE File:Line Description Fix suggestion Overall rating: MERGE-READY | MERGE-AFTER-FIXES | REWORK
Constraints:
- Only check code quality, logic, tests – NO security analysis (separate sub-command)
- Severity levels: CRITICAL (merge blocker), HIGH (should be fixed), NOTE (optional)
- No style nitpicks if code conventions are followed
Orchestrator Checkpoint
- Findings are concrete and traceable?
- Severity levels assigned consistently?
- Overall rating matches the findings?
Output
- Review findings as table (documented in SPRINT.md or reviews/)
Handover Epilog
Update docs/HANDOVER.md:
- What was created/changed
- Open decisions → the
## Open Decisionstable; a finding outside this command's scope goes to the## Open Pointsinbox instead - Next Steps (according to
~/.claude/docs/NEXT_STEPS_REFERENCE.md)
Recommend 1-3 sensible next commands to the user:
- Read
docs/HANDOVER.mdfor the current project status - Consult
~/.claude/docs/NEXT_STEPS_REFERENCE.mdfor allowed transitions - Only suggest commands that match the current phase/sub-command status
- If the current phase appears complete: recommend the gate
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 Changed a7e0bd1ec768
- 1mo ago Changed 842a75373547
- 1mo ago First seen · 67 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4a65350dc6ae
p5-review-code is a command published in the GitHub repository jonase47/ccpr (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 566 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.
Other commands, from other repositories
double-check
Comprehensive verification with automated quality gates, confession gathering, and confidence-based issue filtering. Default: self-review with gates. --deep: multi-agent review via code-reviewer agent. Use before committing, after fixing bugs, or to validate feature completeness.
test-coverage
Analyze test coverage, identify gaps, and generate missing tests to reach 80% project / 90% touched.
dart-review-pr
review a PR or address review feedback.
test-suite
Run comprehensive test suite with coverage analysis.
test
Design or run focused test validation for a task, bug, or diff.
create-pr
Context-aware GitHub Pull Request creation and update assistant.