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/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/review-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboardingWrote 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/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/review-code.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 5.1 | $0.00025 | $0.00701 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00351 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00070 |
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 3d 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Review the specified code for quality, security, and maintainability using parallel multi-perspective review.
Process
Step 1 — Detect scope
Determine which files/directories to review from $ARGUMENTS (default: recent changes via git diff --name-only HEAD).
Step 2 — Identify active stacks
Scan the file list for tech signals and build a dispatch list:
| Signal | Agent |
|---|---|
*.java or pom.xml |
spring-reactive-reviewer |
*.ts + NestJS decorators (@Controller, @Injectable, @Module) |
nestjs-reviewer |
*.ts/*.html under Angular project (angular.json present) |
code-reviewer (Angular) |
*.dart or pubspec.yaml |
riverpod-reviewer |
*.py + LangChain/LangGraph imports |
agentic-ai-reviewer |
*.py (other) |
code-reviewer (Python) |
*.sql or migration files |
postgresql-database-reviewer |
| Mixed/other | code-reviewer (general) |
Always add:
security-reviewer— runs on ALL scopes regardless of stack.
Step 3 — Dispatch in parallel
Launch all identified agents simultaneously using the Task tool with run_in_background: true.
Do not wait for one to finish before starting the next.
Example for a NestJS + database change:
- Background agent 1:
nestjs-reviewer— NestJS-specific quality checks - Background agent 2:
postgresql-database-reviewer— SQL/migration safety - Background agent 3:
security-reviewer— auth, injection, secrets
Step 4 — Merge findings by severity
Collect all agent outputs and produce a unified report. De-duplicate issues that multiple agents flagged independently (keep the most specific description).
## Review: [scope] — [N] agents, [N] files
### CRITICAL (must fix before merge)
- [file:line] [agent] [description]
### HIGH (strongly recommended to fix)
- [file:line] [agent] [description]
### MEDIUM (fix soon, can merge with justification)
- [file:line] [agent] [description]
### LOW / INFO (consider for future)
- [file:line] [agent] [description]
### Summary
- Agents dispatched: [list]
- Total issues: N (critical: X, high: Y, medium: Z, low: W)
- Duplicate findings collapsed: N
- Verdict: ✅ APPROVE / ⚠️ NEEDS_REVIEW / ❌ REJECT
Verdict rules:
✅ APPROVE — 0 critical, 0 high unresolved
⚠️ NEEDS_REVIEW — 0 critical, ≥1 high (must justify in PR)
❌ REJECT — ≥1 critical unresolved
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 74 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 00f540f0d797
review-code is a command published in the GitHub repository kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding (35 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 701 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
rag-audit
Report quality and best-practice gaps in an existing implementation. TRIGGER WHEN: the user asks to review, audit, or validate a RAG pipeline: chunking, embeddings, retrieval, reranking, or production readiness. DO NOT TRIGGER WHEN: building from scratch (use rag-architect), or auditing a pure vector database (use…
rag-debug
Debug RAG pipeline issues with systematic retrieval and generation analysis.
querying
Query documents from a search index using type-safe filters with support for pagination, sorting, field selection, scoring, and highlighting. Count matching documents efficiently without returning results.
agent
Add an AI agent / RAG backend (@convex-dev/agent) to the Convex app.
ingest
Manually add knowledge to the Weaviate store.
inference.embed
Embed one or more texts into vectors.