review

review is a command for Claude Code from meshulga/agents-doc. It costs 6 tokens per session (62 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A command that compares the current code branch with the main branch, the project’s primary shared branch.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it before merging or opening a pull request to inspect the branch difference and identify changes that need attention.
Why use it?
It focuses review on behavior changes, missing tests, public interface breakages, and migration notes that a pull request may need.

Command for Claude Code

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/meshulga/agents-doc/review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/meshulga/agents-doc

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

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/meshulga/agents-doc/review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/meshulga/agents-doc/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/meshulga/agents-doc/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/meshulga/agents-doc/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 6 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 62 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 $0.00006 $0.00062
Opus 5 $0.00003 $0.00031
Sonnet 5 $0.00001 $0.00012
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00006

Measured 3d ago against content hash 8f991bc772a4, 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 3d 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.

examples/demo.template/.claude/commands/review.md · 10 lines

What it actually says

Review the diff between the current branch and main. Focus on:

  • Behavior changes and missing tests.
  • Public API breakage.
  • Anything that needs a migration note in the PR description.
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. 3d ago First seen · 10 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 8f991bc772a4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository meshulga/agents-doc (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 62 once invoked, about $0.0000 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.