ks-review

ks-review is a command for coding agents from MikeCodeur/killer-saas. It costs 25 tokens per session (752 once invoked), scanned A, original, no licence file.

A command that sends a software story to a separate, fresh-context subagent for review before release. The reviewer is not the same agent context that wrote the code.

In plain words
What is it for?
Getting an independent review of a story before it is marked ready to ship.
Why use it?
A reviewer without the original coding context can inspect the work with fewer assumptions and provide a gate before shipping.

Command

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/mikecodeur/killer-saas/ks-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MikeCodeur/killer-saas

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 ks-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mikecodeur/killer-saas/ks-review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/mikecodeur/killer-saas/ks-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mikecodeur/killer-saas/ks-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mikecodeur/killer-saas/ks-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 25 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 752 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin unknown 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 $0.00025 $0.00752
Opus 5 $0.00013 $0.00376
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00150
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00075

Measured 4d ago against content hash 1ee08376cc5d, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

ks-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 4d 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.

src/commands/ks-review.md · 44 lines

The source is not reproduced here

No licence file

A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.

Read it on GitHub

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. 4d ago First seen · 44 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 1ee08376cc5d

Subscribe to this mod's changes

ks-review is a command published in the GitHub repository MikeCodeur/killer-saas (44 stars, last pushed 4d ago), with no licence file. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 752 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.