Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to MH4GF/rulens. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MH4GF/rulens/main/.claude/commands/review-and-improve-docs.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MH4GF/rulensWrote 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/mh4gf/rulens/review-and-improve-docs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mh4gf/rulens/review-and-improve-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mh4gf/rulens/review-and-improve-docs/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/mh4gf/rulens/review-and-improve-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mh4gf/rulens/review-and-improve-docs.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00292 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00146 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
review-and-improve-docs 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 10d 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
Please conduct a detailed review of the work session, focusing particularly on the interaction patterns with the user, and improve the CLAUDE.md document.
Focus your analysis on the following points:
-
User Intervention Pattern Identification
- Locations where the user provided correction instructions and their reasons
- Specific situations where the user intervened with phrases like 'wait' or 'that's not right' during code generation
- Instances where project rules or coding conventions were violated
-
Learning from Behavioral Constraints and Redirections
- Constraints set by the user and the intentions behind them
- Parts of the initial implementation approach that were changed by the user
- Project-specific rules and patterns that must be adhered to
-
Meta-Analysis for Improvement
- Patterns in areas where the user repeatedly intervened
- Root causes of misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions
- Additional information needed to deepen understanding of the project
Based on the above analysis, enhance CLAUDE.md in the following ways:
- Clear documentation of challenges faced and their solutions
- Detailed explanation of project-specific rules and how to apply them
- Guidelines to reduce miscommunication in future sessions
- Notes on precautions during code generation and verification methods
- Improvement points from an engineering perspective with specific implementation advice
Please ensure the document is practical and aligned with the engineer's workflow and expectations, with emphasis on concrete measures to prevent the same issues from recurring.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 31 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A eebf518ad599
review-and-improve-docs is a command published in the GitHub repository MH4GF/rulens (11 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 292 tokens. 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
version
Display current guide and Claude Code versions.
diff-docs
Compare official Anthropic docs baseline vs current snapshot (no network — instant).
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
docs-review
Phase 4 of documenting-projects: Quality gate with 8 measurable criteria and iteration. Triggers: '/docs-review', invoked by documenting-projects orchestrator.
review
Review proposed ADRs for lifecycle progression — accept implemented decisions, deprecate stale ones, archive trivial ones.
harness-adopt
Apply Harness Starter Kit to the current target repository with the prompt-first adoption workflow.