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/mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLICWrote 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/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/link-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/link-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/link-review/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/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/link-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/link-review.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 | $0.00010 | $0.00316 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00158 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00032 |
Grade A, and why
link-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 11d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to link-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
IMPORTANT: Only review the files explicitly listed in the prompt above. Do not search for or review additional files.
Review the links in the specified changed files and check for potential issues:
Link Quality Checks
- Broken Links: Identify any links that might be broken or malformed
- Outdated Links: Check for links to deprecated resources or old documentation
- Security: Ensure no links to suspicious or potentially harmful sites
- Best Practices:
- Links should use HTTPS where possible
- Internal links should use relative paths
- External links should be to stable, reputable sources
Specific Checks for Anthropic Content
- Links to Claude documentation should point to the latest versions
- API documentation links should be current
- Model documentation should reference current models, not deprecated ones
- GitHub links should use the correct repository paths
Report Format
Provide a clear summary with:
- ✅ Valid and well-formed links
- ⚠️ Links that might need attention (e.g., HTTP instead of HTTPS)
- ❌ Broken or problematic links that must be fixed
If all links look good, provide a brief confirmation.
IMPORTANT: Post your review as a comment on the pull request using the command: gh pr comment $PR_NUMBER --body "your review content"
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 33 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 268e57ae11ce
link-review is a command published in the GitHub repository mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 316 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to link-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
final-review
Command "final-review" from adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai, covering final review - comprehensive pr review & testing, step 0: determine review pass, step 1: create or update the pr, step 2: launch three review agents in parallel and agent 1: codebase consistency reviewer.
code-review
Perform a thorough code review that verifies functionality, maintainability, and security before approving a change. Focus on architecture, readability, performance implications, and provide actionable suggestions for improvement.
review-branch
Review an existing branch holistically before merging — blast radius, conventions, security, and spec compliance.
eg-precommit-review
Run the pre-commit independent-reviewer loop on the current branch's pending changes.
pr
Clean up code, stage changes, and prepare a pull request.
review
Perform a comprehensive code review focusing on style, bugs, and security.