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/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-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/review-pr.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 | $0.00073 | $0.00965 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00483 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00193 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 4d 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review — 6 Roles
Run a concern-specific review of code changes. Each role examines a different dimension regardless of tech stack.
Roles
| Role | Agent | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Comment accuracy | comment-analyzer |
Comments vs actual code |
| Test coverage | pr-test-analyzer |
Behavioral gaps, not line coverage |
| Error handling | silent-failure-hunter |
Silent failures, swallowed exceptions |
| Type design | type-design-analyzer |
Invariants, encapsulation, invalid states |
| Code quality | code-reviewer |
Bugs, style, CLAUDE.md compliance |
| Simplification | code-simplifier |
Unnecessary complexity |
Process
Step 0 — Risk-Gated Scope Assessment
Before dispatching reviewers, calculate the PR risk score to calibrate review depth.
git diff --shortstat HEAD~1
git diff --name-status HEAD~1
Apply the Size Risk factor from /pr-risk:
| Files / Lines | Risk Tier | Review Depth |
|---|---|---|
| ≤ 5 files, ≤ 100 lines | 🟢 Low | Run roles: errors, code only (skip comment-analyzer, type-design-analyzer for speed) |
| 6-20 files, ≤ 600 lines | 🟡 Medium | Run all 6 roles |
| > 20 files OR > 600 lines | 🟠 High | Run all 6 roles + recommend running /pr-risk for full scoring |
Check for security-sensitive patterns:
git diff --name-only HEAD~1 | grep -iE "auth|login|token|jwt|crypto|secret|password|permission|role|guard"
If security-sensitive files changed: always include security-reviewer via code-reviewer agent (flag it explicitly).
Print the risk tier before dispatching agents so the user sees it.
- Determine scope — From
$ARGUMENTS; if not specified usegit diff HEAD~1 - Determine roles — Parse topic filter from
$ARGUMENTS(see Topic Filters below); default: all 6 (adjusted by risk tier from Step 0) - Dispatch agents — Run each selected agent against the scope; collect findings
- Aggregate — Group all findings by severity across all roles
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 106 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4d0c3f2f7889
review-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding (35 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 965 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.