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/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teamsWrote 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/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/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/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/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 | $0.00043 | $0.00583 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00292 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00058 |
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 8d 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Run a structured 3-pass review on uncommitted or staged changes.
Process
-
Gather changes:
git diff --stagedandgit diffto see all modifications. If no diff, check recent commits withgit log --oneline -5. -
Read surrounding code: Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
-
Run three passes:
Pass 1: Code Quality
Security (CRITICAL — always flag):
- Hardcoded credentials, API keys, tokens
- SQL/NoSQL injection, XSS vulnerabilities
- Missing input validation, path traversal
- Authentication bypasses, CSRF gaps
- Insecure dependencies, exposed secrets in logs
Code Quality (HIGH):
- Bugs, logic errors, off-by-one errors
- Functions >50 lines, files >800 lines, nesting >4 levels
- Missing error handling, console.log statements
- Missing tests for new code paths, dead code
React/Node.js Patterns (HIGH):
- Missing useEffect dependency arrays, stale closures
- N+1 queries, unbounded queries, missing rate limiting
- Unvalidated request input, error message leakage
Performance (MEDIUM):
- O(n²) algorithms, missing caching, large bundle imports
Pass 2: Compliance
- CLAUDE.md rules for each repo touched (naming, structure, patterns)
- TypeScript strictness (no
any, explicit types) - Code style (longform property syntax, ~200 line files)
- Test coverage for changed behavior
Pass 3: Contract Consistency (skip if single-repo)
- Frontend/backend API type alignment
- Endpoint path consistency
- Error format consistency (
{ code, message, details })
Confidence-Based Filtering
- Only report issues with >80% confidence
- Consolidate similar issues
- Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate project conventions
Output Format
## MUST FIX
- [file:line] [description] — [why critical]
## SHOULD FIX
- [file:line] [description] — [why improves quality]
## NITPICK
- [file:line] [description]
## Summary
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| MUST FIX | N |
| SHOULD FIX | N |
| NITPICK | N |
Verdict: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / BLOCK
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 79 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 1b455cd1b5c2
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 583 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
Other commands, from other repositories
analyze-file
Deep analysis of a specific file using code-analyst sub-agent.
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
revisar
Peer review estricto de código con análisis de rendimiento, arquitectura, seguridad y cumplimiento. Usa cuando el usuario dice "revisar código", "code review", "peer review", "revisame este archivo", "review my code", "analizar código", "revisar PR", "revisar feature". Incluye análisis de performance, security OWASP…
pi-code-review
Adversarial code review via Codex — break confidence in changes, not validate them.
pi-fact-check
Fact-check content via Gemini search + Claude verification — cross-provider claim validation.
pi-askall
Ask both Codex and Gemini the same question — get three perspectives with Claude synthesis.