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/muyen/vibe-to-prodWrote 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/muyen/vibe-to-prod/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/muyen/vibe-to-prod/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/muyen/vibe-to-prod/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/muyen/vibe-to-prod/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/muyen/vibe-to-prod/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 | $0.00013 | $0.00396 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00158 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00040 |
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 12d 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
Code Review
Review: $ARGUMENTS
Review Checklist
1. Correctness
- Logic is correct
- Edge cases handled
- Error handling appropriate
- No obvious bugs
2. Security
- No hardcoded secrets
- Input validation present
- No SQL/command injection
- Auth/authz checks in place
3. Performance
- No N+1 queries
- Appropriate caching
- No memory leaks
- Efficient algorithms
4. Architecture
- Follows project patterns
- Proper separation of concerns
- Dependencies injected correctly
- No circular dependencies
5. Readability
- Clear naming
- Functions not too long
- Complex logic commented
- Consistent style
6. Testing
- Tests exist for new code
- Edge cases tested
- Tests are meaningful
Process
- Read the code thoroughly
- Check against each category
- Note issues with file:line references
- Suggest improvements
- Highlight good practices
Output Format
## Code Review: [file/PR]
### Summary
[Brief overview of the code]
### Issues Found
#### Critical
- [file:line] Issue description
#### Warnings
- [file:line] Issue description
#### Suggestions
- [file:line] Suggestion
### Good Practices
- [What's done well]
### Verdict
[ ] Approved
[ ] Approved with suggestions
[ ] Changes requested
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 83 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A a1c202c25c3e
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository muyen/vibe-to-prod (34 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 396 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 2026-10-04.
Other commands, from other repositories
review
Run on-demand code review during development (voting-enabled).
pr
A pull-request or merge-request description generator based on the changes in Git and, when available, a software specification.
review-python-code
A command for reviewing Python code for style, type annotations, reliability, performance, and project rules. PEP 8 is the commonly used guide for formatting and writing readable Python.
review-react-code
A command that reviews React and TypeScript code, including how components are organised, how Hooks are used, how state is handled, and how the code performs.
code-review
A code-review command that examines a pull request, which is a proposed set of code changes, and produces a Traditional Chinese report with weighted scores from 1 to 5.
review-design
A review process for checking whether a proposed website design is faithful, practical, and ready to plan. It compares the design with the requirements and project files.