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/KevinZai/commanderWrote 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/kevinzai/commander/ccc-python-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kevinzai/commander/ccc-python-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kevinzai/commander/ccc-python-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/kevinzai/commander/ccc-python-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kevinzai/commander/ccc-python-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 | $0.00048 | $0.01212 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00485 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
ccc-python-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 5d 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to python-review — 335 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/ccc-python-review — Python review with a merge verdict
CC Commander · /ccc-python-review · static analysis plus a python-reviewer agent pass, returned as path:line findings and an approve, warn or block verdict.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS: optional paths or a git range (for example main...HEAD). Default: uncommitted and staged changes.
What happens
-
Find the Python changes.
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=ACMR HEAD -- '*.py' git diff --name-only --diff-filter=ACMR <range> -- '*.py' # when a range was givenInclude
pyproject.toml,setup.cfg,requirements*.txtand lock files when they changed. If no Python files changed, say so and stop. -
Run static analysis. Run each tool only when it is installed (
command -v <tool>) or declared in the project's dev dependencies; prefer the project's own task runner (make lint,tox,nox,uv run,poetry run) when it defines these checks. Scope to the changed files where the tool allows it.ruff check <files> ruff format --check <files> # or: black --check <files> isort --check-only <files> # only when the project uses isort mypy <files> bandit -q <files> pip-audit # dependency audit, when dependencies changed pytest --cov=<package> --cov-report=term-missing # when tests existRecord pass, fail or not installed for each. Do not install missing tools.
-
Delegate the code review. Call the Agent tool with the
python-revieweragent (read-only), passing the changed file list, the diff, the static-analysis output and the detected framework (Django, FastAPI, Flask or none). Ask it to return findings aspath:line+ severity + issue + fix. Codex fallback: run the same review withcodex exec --sandbox read-onlyand the same instructions. -
Check the findings. Open each CRITICAL and HIGH finding at its
path:lineand confirm it against the code before reporting it; drop any the code does not support. -
Report in the output format below and give the verdict.
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.
- 5d ago Changed · -198 lines · +17 tokens per session fe005a3b4ac7
- 1mo ago First seen · 298 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 7e1ee65e9cc9
ccc-python-review is a command published in the GitHub repository KevinZai/commander (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,212 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to python-review, differing in 335 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
py-harden
Scan Python backend code for anti-patterns and fix them. Runs the full anti-pattern catalog (AP-01 through AP-22) against the codebase.
py-structure
Analyze and recommend project structure improvements. Checks file sizes, layer organization, module splitting, and hexagonal architecture compliance.
python-review
Comprehensive Python code review for PEP 8 compliance, type hints, security, and Pythonic idioms. Invokes the python-reviewer agent.
python-dev
Start Python development workflow with architecture, implementation, review, and testing phases.
dotnet-teach
One-time setup that scans a .NET backend project, learns its conventions and architecture, and writes them to CLAUDE.md for future sessions.
rust-critique
Deep code critique — read the target Rust code and apply the full review process. Evaluates soundness, ownership, error handling, type design, async correctness, performance, and architecture. Think like a senior Rust engineer giving honest feedback.