cavekit is a Claude Code plugin that organizes software changes through a compact, spec-driven workflow stored in a SPEC.md file. It is for developers who want to plan, research, review, and build changes while preserving project context across sessions; the catalogue entries are its skills, commands, plugin configuration, and workflow rules.
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/JuliusBrussee/cavekitWrote 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/juliusbrussee/cavekit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/juliusbrussee/cavekit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juliusbrussee/cavekit/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/juliusbrussee/cavekit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juliusbrussee/cavekit/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00148 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00059 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00030 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00015 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Invoke the review skill (skills/review/SKILL.md). Construct a senior
reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R, and live best-practice,
then try to refute the spec (§G §C §I §R §V §T). Every finding cites evidence —
file:line or source; flag unverifiable ones [unverified]. Draft §V lines for
HARDEN findings and hand them to spec. End on an explicit GO / NO-GO 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 First seen · 11 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 3ebfc921ebe4
review is a command published in the GitHub repository JuliusBrussee/cavekit (1,156 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 148 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
cc-review
(Conductor) Review code changes against spec and standards.
speckit.analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation. (project).
critique
Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says "what's wrong with this UI", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation.
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
devkit.react.code-review
Provides comprehensive React 19 + Tailwind CSS code review focusing on modern patterns, hooks, Server Components, Actions, performance, accessibility, and Tailwind best practices. Use when reviewing React code changes or before merging pull requests.
devkit.typescript.code-review
Provides comprehensive TypeScript monorepo code review for Nx workspaces including NestJS backend, React web, and React Native mobile apps. Use when reviewing architecture, boundaries, security, performance, CI/CD and Nx-specific practices.