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/kensaurus/cursor-kenjiWrote 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/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/codemod-safety)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/codemod-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/codemod-safety/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/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/codemod-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/codemod-safety.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00195 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00078 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00039 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00019 |
Grade A, and why
codemod-safety 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
Codemod-Safety Audit
Run the audit-codemod-safety skill: characterize the transform, then
check whether it preserved behavior, caught every case, and left the repo
on one convention.
Read-only — do not re-run the transform or edit the diffs. "Compiles
and lints" is not "behaves the same." General PR quality stays on
audit-code-review. SQL / destructive migrations stay on
plan-data-integrity.
If a semantic bug slipped past CI because size defeated review, also note
it for audit-gate-logic.
The full playbook lives in the audit-codemod-safety skill.
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 · +2 lines 7538be67ccfd
- 1mo ago First seen · 21 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 642840f04492
codemod-safety is a command published in the GitHub repository kensaurus/cursor-kenji (9 stars, last pushed 27d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 195 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
code-review
Confidence-based code review checklist.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
Extremely strict maintainability review hunting for code-judo simplifications, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth.
address-github-pr-comments
Address review comments on the current GitHub PR.
handle-pr-comments
Fetch all PR comments, classify by severity, and present for user approval before acting.
self-review
Review only changed files in this branch Your primary goal is to provide valuable, trustworthy feedback while avoiding false positives and low-impact commentary.
execute
Run task execution workflow step-by-step.