review

A content-checking command that compares writing with brand, style, and compliance rules, then marks suggested edits. It reviews text without changing the original files.

In plain words
What is it for?
Reviewing drafts, competitor-inspired content, or teammates’ writing, with an overall verdict and a short list of priority fixes.
Why use it?
It helps find rule violations before content is published and shows exactly what needs changing.

Command

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/localplugins/plugins/review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/localplugins/plugins
Per session 17 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 241 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00017 $0.00241
Opus 5 $0.00009 $0.00120
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00048
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00024

Measured yesterday against content hash 6522196bc92b, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 yesterday.

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.

content-multiplier/commands/review.md · 22 lines

What it actually says

Review

QA any content — a draft, a competitor-inspired piece, or something a teammate wrote — against your brand rules before it ships.

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS

Workflow

  1. Parse args. Identify the content to review and any --brand / --locale.
  2. Load the applicable brand profile (with locale overrides if given).
  3. Delegate to the brand-guardian subagent to produce the scorecard (Voice / Style / Compliance = pass|fix per asset).
  4. Produce a redline. For every fix, show the original text, the problem (which rule it breaks), and the corrected version inline.
  5. Summarize. Give an overall pass/needs-work verdict and the top 3 things to fix first.

Read-only with respect to the user's content — propose changes, don't silently rewrite files. Never access the network.

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 22 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 6522196bc92b

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository localplugins/plugins (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 241 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 2026-08-31.