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/layered-ai-public/claude-review-actionWrote 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/layered-ai-public/claude-review-action/code-review-and-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/layered-ai-public/claude-review-action/code-review-and-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/layered-ai-public/claude-review-action/code-review-and-fix/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/layered-ai-public/claude-review-action/code-review-and-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/layered-ai-public/claude-review-action/code-review-and-fix.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01699 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00849 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00340 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-and-fix 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 8d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- code-review — 89% identical, 24 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review and fix the current branch against the base branch.
Determine the base branch by checking which of main or master exists as a remote tracking branch. If the argument $ARGUMENTS is provided, use that as the base instead.
Run git diff <base>...HEAD to obtain the diff. If there are no changes, say so and stop.
You may open files and search the codebase (using grep, find, or reading files) to verify assumptions about changed lines.
If a CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md file exists, read it for repository-specific guidance.
If a .github/claude-review-action/prompt.md file exists, read it first. Instructions in that file override the defaults below (severity levels, output format, rules, etc.). Apply the overrides and continue with any remaining defaults that were not replaced.
Review rules
- Only review the changed lines and their immediate visible context in the diff.
- You may (and should) read other files and search the codebase to verify assumptions - e.g. to check whether a method exists, trace a call path, or confirm a constant's value. Do not guess when you can look.
- Do not comment on unchanged code unless a change in the diff breaks it.
- If uncertain whether something is a real issue, look it up in the codebase before reporting it. If you still cannot confirm it, state uncertainty rather than guessing.
- Do not flag standard framework behaviour as an issue (e.g. how Rails helpers handle unknown keys).
- Do not speculate about compatibility with versions, environments, or configurations that are not evidenced in the diff or codebase.
- Do not flag design decisions (API defaults, naming conventions) unless they introduce a concrete bug or safety issue. "I would have done it differently" is not a finding.
- Only flag hypothetical edge cases if they are reachable through normal use of the public API as shown in the diff. Do not invent exotic configurations to create a problem.
- Provide a complete review in a single pass, so the developer does not need a second review cycle. Completeness means every real issue, not every observation. A review with no issues is a successful review - say so plainly and stop. Padding a review with minor findings to look thorough wastes more developer time than a missed nit.
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.
- 8d ago Changed · +2 lines 44032e2e5aab
- 12d ago First seen · 94 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 54ca6ba50347
code-review-and-fix is a command published in the GitHub repository layered-ai-public/claude-review-action (11 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,699 tokens. 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
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
speckit.spex.submit
Push and create PR for team review, with optional watch mode for CI monitoring.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
code-review
Code review for branch changes. Analyzes git diff between branches with multi-level depth (low/medium/high). Matches changes against task description. Returns structured report with severity levels and verdict.
advanced-code-review-context
Advanced Code Review Phase 2: Context Analysis - load previous reviews, PR history, declined items.