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/monoes/monomindWrote 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/monoes/monomind/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/monoes/monomind/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/monoes/monomind/code-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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/monoes/monomind/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/monoes/monomind/code-review.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 | $0.00032 | $0.03798 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.01519 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00760 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00380 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 yesterday.
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 — 317 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
First — extract repeat flags: Follow the REPEAT PREAMBLE from mastermind-repeat/SKILL.md. Extracts --repeat, --tillend, --maxruns, --wait, --rep, --loop from $ARGUMENTS before all other parsing. If is_continuation = true, skip the empty-arguments check below.
Parse remaining $ARGUMENTS as TOTAL_ITERATIONS (integer, min 1, max 10).
If $ARGUMENTS is empty, not a positive integer, or greater than 10, output this and STOP:
Usage:
/mastermind:code-review <iterations>Examples:
/mastermind:code-review 1— single review pass/mastermind:code-review 3— three fix-and-re-review cyclesRuns parallel review agents each iteration, auto-fixes what can be fixed, and saves items requiring human judgment to
humaninloopreview-YYYY-MM-DD.md.
Do NOT proceed further if no valid number was provided.
Terminology
- Finding: An issue reported by any review agent.
- Auto-fixable: Claude can apply the fix without ambiguity and without changing intended behavior.
- Human-in-loop (HIL): Requires a product/design/architecture decision, a credential, a policy choice, or something Claude cannot safely assume. These are written to the HIL file and skipped.
- HIL file:
humaninloopreview-<YYYY-MM-DD>.mdin the project root. Appended each loop; never overwritten.
Step 0: Setup
Parse $ARGUMENTS as TOTAL_ITERATIONS (integer, min 1, max 10).
Collect the following in parallel:
- Git context: Run the following to get recently changed files. Store result as
CHANGED_FILES.CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff --name-only HEAD~1 HEAD 2>/dev/null) [ -z "$CHANGED_FILES" ] && CHANGED_FILES=$(git ls-files -m 2>/dev/null) [ -z "$CHANGED_FILES" ] && CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff --name-only HEAD~5 HEAD 2>/dev/null) - Repo structure: Run
git ls-files | head -80to get a representative file list. Store asFILE_LIST. - Branch info: Run
git log --oneline -5to get recent commit context. Store asRECENT_COMMITS. - Stack detection: Run
ls package.json pyproject.toml go.mod Cargo.toml 2>/dev/null; find . -maxdepth 3 \( -name "*.swift" -o -name "*.kt" \) | head -3to detect language/framework. Store detected stacks asSTACK. - HIL file path: Compute
HIL_FILE=humaninloopreview-$(date +%Y-%m-%d).mdin the project root.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 317 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 8eb41ce23cc3
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository monoes/monomind (23 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 3,798 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-26.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-diff
Review the current working diff for correctness, security, and reuse.
review-preflight
Fast deterministic review preparation without reviewer execution.
prepr
Prepara los cambios como Pull Request listo para review.
query
Ask questions about a repository/codebase and get detailed answers with file citations.
simplify
Code simplification review — find duplication, dead code, over-abstraction, and missed reuse.
kotlin-review
Comprehensive Kotlin code review for idiomatic patterns, null safety, coroutine safety, and security. Invokes the kotlin-reviewer agent.