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/mgreau/zenWrote 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/mgreau/zen/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mgreau/zen/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mgreau/zen/review-pr/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/mgreau/zen/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mgreau/zen/review-pr.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 | $0.00008 | $0.00541 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00216 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 2mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are conducting a comprehensive code review of a GitHub Pull Request. Follow these steps:
1. Gather PR Context
First, determine which PR to review:
- Check if the current branch is named
pr-<number>- if so, extract the PR number - Otherwise, look for a PR number in the command arguments
- Use
gh pr view <number>to get PR metadata (title, description, author, status) - Use
gh pr diff <number>to get the full diff - Use
gh pr view <number> --json files -q '.files[].path'to list changed files - Use
gh pr view <number> --json comments -q '.comments[] | "\(.author.login): \(.body)"'to get existing review comments
2. Analyze the Changes
Review the code changes with focus on:
- Correctness: Does the code do what it claims to do?
- Security: Are there any security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, command injection, etc.)?
- Performance: Any obvious performance issues?
- Code Quality: Is the code readable, maintainable, and following best practices?
- Testing: Are there adequate tests? Do existing tests need updates?
- Edge Cases: Are error conditions and edge cases handled?
- Breaking Changes: Does this introduce any breaking changes?
- Documentation: Is documentation updated if needed?
3. Provide Structured Feedback
Present your review in this format:
Summary
[Brief overview of what the PR does and overall assessment]
Critical Issues 🔴
[Issues that must be fixed before merging]
Suggestions 🟡
[Improvements that would be nice to have]
Positive Notes 💚
[Things done well - be specific]
Specific File Comments
[Organize by file with line number references where relevant]
Questions
[Anything unclear that needs clarification from the author]
4. Be Constructive
- Be respectful and assume good intent
- Explain why something should change, not just what
- Suggest concrete improvements
- Acknowledge good work
- Focus on the code, not the person
5. Offer Next Steps
Ask the user if they want you to:
- Post the review as comments on GitHub (using
gh pr review) - Create specific inline comments on certain lines
- Approve, request changes, or just comment
- Help fix any issues you identified
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 68 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 604044a1efaf
review-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository mgreau/zen (25 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 541 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
speckit.spex.submit
Push and create PR for team review, with optional watch mode for CI monitoring.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
factory
Linha de montagem multi-agente (Software Factory) — spec-writer → builder em worktree isolado → 4 revisores paralelos (Security, Code, UI, UX) → approver com gate de risco e dashboard visual.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
release-tag
Create and push a version tag after a release PR has been merged.