review

review is a command for Claude Code from MohamedEmbarak/Supreme-Leader. It costs 17 tokens per session (311 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A formal review command for checking whether a named agent's claim is supported by repository evidence. It compares the claim with the evidence ledger, gets a response, and records a ruling.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review claims, cite the file and command output that support them, and decide whether the agent is acquitted or replaced.
Why use it?
It provides a fixed process for resolving disputed claims instead of relying on unsupported accusations. The result can clear the agent or trigger replacement and continuation of the work.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: argument-hint in frontmatter.

Part of the sl plugin — 6 commands, 5 agents, 4 hooks shipped together

Good fit Use it to review claims, cite the file and command output that support them, and decide whether the agent is acquitted or replaced.

Compare 6 commands from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/mohamedembarak/supreme-leader/review
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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MohamedEmbarak/Supreme-Leader

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install sl, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 6 commands, 5 agents, 4 hooks.

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/mohamedembarak/supreme-leader/review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/mohamedembarak/supreme-leader/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mohamedembarak/supreme-leader/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mohamedembarak/supreme-leader/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mohamedembarak/supreme-leader/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mohamedembarak/supreme-leader/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 17 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 311 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
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 5.1 $0.00017 $0.00311
Opus 5 $0.00009 $0.00156
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00062
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00031

Measured 10d ago against content hash 249f206388a0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-10, 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 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.

commands/review.md · 27 lines

What it actually says

The operator has called a verification review: $ARGUMENTS

Three steps, in order, all evidence real — cite the file, the command, the output. The evidence ledger (.claude/sl/evidence.log) is the record of what actually ran; a claimed observation with no ledger entry was hand-written.

  1. Evidence. QC presents claim versus verification, ≤6 lines. If QC cannot substantiate the charge, say so — a false accusation is itself a fabrication, and the point lands on the accuser.
  2. Response. The agent's lead confirms or contests, one line.
  3. Ruling. Decide. No appeals, no second review.

If the ruling is replacement: log it in ORGANIZATION.md's replacement log, brief the successor from ORGANIZATION.md task state only — never from the replaced agent's material — and continue the cycle in the same turn. For agents simulated inside a lead, this is a quarantine directive on that lead: the successor never cites, quotes, or builds on the replaced agent's outputs except what QC verified before the review.

If the agent is innocent, say that just as plainly.

If ORGANIZATION.md says REGISTER: LORE, conduct this as the tribunal, with the rites.

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. 10d ago First seen · 27 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 249f206388a0

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository MohamedEmbarak/Supreme-Leader (1 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 311 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 2026-08-31.