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/notebook-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/notebook-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/notebook-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/notebook-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/notebook-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 | $0.00155 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00062 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00031 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00015 |
Grade A, and why
notebook-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 1mo 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 notebook-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 specified Jupyter notebooks and Python scripts using the Notebook review skill.
Provide a clear summary with:
- ✅ What looks good
- ⚠️ Suggestions for improvement
- ❌ Critical issues that must be fixed
IMPORTANT: Post your review as a comment on the pull request using the command: gh pr comment $PR_NUMBER --body "your review"
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 16 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 0beebefe02b1
notebook-review is a command published in the GitHub repository mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC (3 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 155 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to notebook-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
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-review
Perform a comprehensive PR review with code analysis, best practices check, and suggestions.
review
Perform a comprehensive PR review with code analysis, best practices.
pr
Clean up code, stage changes, and prepare a pull request.
review
Perform a comprehensive code review focusing on style, bugs, and security.