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/joneqian/claude-skills-suiteWrote 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/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/full-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/full-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/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/full-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 | $0.00032 | $0.00586 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
full-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 11d 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Full Review Command
Orchestrate a comprehensive code review on specified files by running three agents in sequence, then produce a single prioritized report.
What This Command Does
- Code Quality – Invoke @code-reviewer for structure, style, and maintainability
- Security – Invoke @security-auditor for vulnerabilities and sensitive-data risks
- Test Coverage – Invoke @test-writer to analyze coverage and gaps
- Consolidated Report – Merge all findings and sort by priority
When to Use
Use /full-review when:
- Reviewing a feature branch or module before merge
- Auditing specific paths (e.g.
src/auth/,packages/api/) - Doing a quality + security + coverage pass without running
/pre-commit-reviewon uncommitted diff only - Preparing for release or PR and you want one combined review report
Instructions
Execute in this order:
- @code-reviewer – Review code quality (complexity, patterns, docs, error handling)
- @security-auditor – Check for security issues (injection, XSS, secrets, validation)
- @test-writer – Analyze test coverage and missing tests
Target: Use paths from $ARGUMENTS as the scope for all three agents.
At the end, summarize every finding in one list, sorted by priority (e.g. CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM → LOW).
Output
Produce a consolidated report in this form:
FULL REVIEW: [scope]
=== CODE QUALITY (code-reviewer) ===
[CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] file:line – description
…
=== SECURITY (security-auditor) ===
[CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] file:line – description
…
=== TEST COVERAGE (test-writer) ===
[CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] file or area – description
…
=== PRIORITIZED SUMMARY ===
1. [Severity] …
2. [Severity] …
…
Ready for merge: [YES/NO]
If there are CRITICAL or HIGH items, list concrete fix suggestions.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS defines the review scope. Examples:
- Path(s) –
src/auth/,packages/api/, orsrc/auth/ packages/api/ - Default – If empty, treat as “current directory” or “all changed files” (implementation choice)
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 74 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A d1dc46306251
full-review is a command published in the GitHub repository joneqian/claude-skills-suite (32 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 586 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.