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/MCKRUZ/claude-code-masteryWrote 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/mckruz/claude-code-mastery/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mckruz/claude-code-mastery/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mckruz/claude-code-mastery/code-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/mckruz/claude-code-mastery/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mckruz/claude-code-mastery/code-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 | $0.00024 | $0.00290 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00116 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
/code-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.
What it actually says
Code Review
Perform a comprehensive security and quality review of uncommitted changes.
Workflow
-
Get changed files:
git diff --name-only HEAD -
For each changed file, check for:
Security Issues (CRITICAL)
- Hardcoded credentials, API keys, tokens
- SQL injection vulnerabilities
- XSS vulnerabilities
- Missing input validation
- Insecure dependencies
- Path traversal risks
Code Quality (HIGH)
- Functions > 50 lines
- Files > 800 lines
- Nesting depth > 4 levels
- Missing error handling
- console.log statements
- TODO/FIXME comments
- Missing JSDoc for public APIs
Best Practices (MEDIUM)
- Mutation patterns (use immutable instead)
- Emoji usage in code/comments
- Missing tests for new code
- Accessibility issues (a11y)
Output Format
- Generate report with:
- Severity: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW
- File location and line numbers
- Issue description
- Suggested fix
Gate
- Block commit if CRITICAL or HIGH issues found — list all issues that must be resolved before merging.
Never approve code with security vulnerabilities.
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 · 52 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 270de5cc240e
/code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository MCKRUZ/claude-code-mastery (11 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 290 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
assemble-team
Assemble a pre-built agent team for parallel work - review, feature, debug, cross-platform, full-stack, or research.
review-code
Trigger a comprehensive code review on recent changes or specified files.
deslop
Audit a standing codebase for accumulated slop — comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, reinvented stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, swallowed errors, convention drift. Fans out read-only auditors sharded by wiki domain and writes an indexed report into a scratchpad for you to read. /deslop…
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
implement
Implement in the main agent, with atomic-reviewer gating every checkpoint. For work whose context is already in this conversation, where a fresh subagent would have to re-read what you have already read. Same checkpoints, commit-per-green, and finalize as /subagent-implementation; you write the code.