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.
npx agentmods add commands/koolamusic/claudefiles/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/koolamusic/claudefilesWrote 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/koolamusic/claudefiles/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/koolamusic/claudefiles/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/koolamusic/claudefiles/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.00575 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00287 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00057 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run a code review. By default reviews the active sprint; can also review an arbitrary branch or commit range.
Parse the input
$ARGUMENTS:
- empty → review the active sprint (
cat .jira/CURRENT) --sprint <slug>→ review that sprint specifically<branch>(e.g.feat/foo) → reviewgit diff main...<branch><range>(e.g.HEAD~5..HEAD) → review that range
If you can't parse the input unambiguously, default to "active sprint" and report what you assumed.
Steps
-
Resolve the diff scope. Compute
git diff <base>...<head>(andgit log <base>..<head>for context). -
Get a quick summary before delegating: file count, +/- line count. If the diff is huge (> 2000 lines), include that in the review prompt so the reviewer paces itself.
-
Spawn
jira-reviewer:- The diff scope (branch, range, or sprint slug)
- All
*-PLAN.mdpaths if reviewing a sprint (reviewer checks goal alignment across plans) - Path to CONTEXT.md if reviewing a sprint (every D-XX must have implementing code)
- Path to EXECUTION.md if reviewing a sprint (cross-reference Nyquist results and deviations)
- Path to VERIFICATION.md if reviewing a sprint (cross-reference goal-backward outcomes)
-
Receive the review (markdown output with verdict + findings by severity).
-
If reviewing a sprint, persist the review:
echo "$REVIEW" > .jira/sprints/<slug>/REVIEW.md git add .jira/sprints/<slug>/REVIEW.md git commit -m "review(<slug>): <verdict>"If reviewing an arbitrary branch/range, just print to the terminal — don't commit anywhere.
-
Report the verdict, finding counts by severity, and the path to the saved review (if any).
Hard rules
- Don't fix. Even one-liners. The reviewer reports; humans (or another
/jira:execute) fix. - Don't open a PR comment. This is a local review tool; it's intentionally separate from GitHub review.
- Don't summarize away findings. Pass the reviewer's output through verbatim.
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 First seen · 49 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 298f1c9ccdd8
review is a command published in the GitHub repository koolamusic/claudefiles (132 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 575 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.