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/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/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/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/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 | $0.00015 | $0.00215 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00086 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00043 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
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 23d 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
/review-code
Agent review pass plus manual checklist for correctness, security, performance, and accessibility.
This command is a thin entry point. The full playbook lives in the audit-code-review skill, which integrates Firecrawl for current best-practice verification and Sentry MCP to check whether the change relates to production errors.
Named
/review-code(not/review) to avoid colliding with Claude Code's built-in/reviewcommand.
Use /review-code when you want to explicitly trigger review. Otherwise, say "review this code", "check my PR", or "review this diff" and the skill auto-fires.
Related: audit-security for OWASP-focused review, audit-performance for Core Web Vitals impact, workflow-coding-discipline for behavioral guardrails.
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.
- 23d ago Changed · +2 lines be7e58f9a36d
- 1mo ago First seen · 17 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A a5af3cc44ae8
review-code is a command published in the GitHub repository kensaurus/cursor-kenji (9 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 215 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.