review-issue

review-issue is a command for Claude Code from mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC. It costs 8 tokens per session (1,550 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of review-issue, MIT.

A command for reviewing a numbered GitHub issue and preparing a response according to the project's community guidelines. GitHub issues are public discussion threads for bug reports, questions, proposals, and other project feedback.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review bug reports, questions, cookbook proposals, duplicate reports, spam, and shared resources, then draft an appropriate response.
Why use it?
It gathers the issue's description and comments, checks related files or issues when needed, and helps classify the request before replying.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter. Also seen: names the AskUserQuestion tool.

Good fit Use it to review bug reports, questions, cookbook proposals, duplicate reports, spam, and shared resources, then draft an appropriate response.

Compare 6 commands from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/review-issue
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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for review-issue

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/review-issue/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/review-issue)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/review-issue"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/review-issue/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for review-issue

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/review-issue"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/review-issue.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 8 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,550 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin 100% copy Near-identical to another mod 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 5.1 $0.00008 $0.01550
Opus 5 $0.00004 $0.00775
Sonnet 5 $0.00002 $0.00310
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00155

Measured 12d ago against content hash 730c96ff5474, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review-issue 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 12d 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.

Origin

This is a copy

100% identical to review-issue — 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.

SKILLS/ANTHROPIC COOKBOOK/.claude/commands/review-issue.md · 177 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Arguments

  • $ARGUMENTS: The issue number to review

Your task

Review the specified GitHub issue and help draft an appropriate response based on our community guidelines.

Step 1: Gather issue context

Get the issue details including comments:

gh issue view $ARGUMENTS --repo anthropics/claude-cookbooks --json number,title,body,author,labels,state,comments,createdAt

Step 2: Classify the issue

Determine the issue type based on content:

  1. Spam/Noise: Gibberish, test posts, off-topic content, or malicious intent
  2. Bug Report: Reports broken code, links, or incorrect information in cookbooks
  3. Cookbook Proposal: Proposes new content or significant additions
  4. Question: Asks about usage, API behavior, or seeks clarification
  5. Community Resource: Shares external project or resource (redirect to Discord)
  6. Duplicate: Issue already exists or has been addressed

Step 3: Check for related context

If the issue references specific files or notebooks:

  • Read the referenced files to understand context
  • Check if the issue is valid (e.g., broken link actually exists)
  • Look for related issues or PRs that may address it

Step 4: Draft a response

Based on the issue type, draft an appropriate response following these guidelines:

For Spam/Noise:
  • Recommend closing without comment
  • Flag any security concerns
For Bug Reports:
  • Acknowledge the report and thank the reporter
  • Verify the issue if possible (check the referenced file/code)
  • If valid and simple: invite them to submit a PR with signed commits
  • If valid and complex: acknowledge and indicate it's on our radar
  • If already fixed: reference the fix (PR/commit)
  • Example: "Thanks for the report! Would you be open to submitting a PR to fix this? If so, please ensure you use signed commits"
For Cookbook Proposals:
  • Thank them for the proposal
  • Evaluate against our criteria:
    • Does it focus on Claude API/SDK capabilities directly?
    • Is it practical with clear educational value?
    • Is it differentiated from existing content?
  • If promising: express interest, ask clarifying questions if needed
  • If not a fit: politely explain why, redirect to appropriate resources
  • Example redirect: "While [topic] is interesting, we focus on showcasing Claude's native API capabilities. We'd encourage you to think about what specific Claude features you want to demonstrate rather than translating patterns from external frameworks."

Read the full file on GitHub · 177 lines

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. 12d ago First seen · 177 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 730c96ff5474

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-issue is a command published in the GitHub repository mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 1,550 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-issue, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.