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/ncssm-robotics/ftc-claudeWrote 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/ncssm-robotics/ftc-claude/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ncssm-robotics/ftc-claude/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ncssm-robotics/ftc-claude/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00011 | $0.01017 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00102 |
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 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 — 157 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Command
Runs the same code review checks locally that the PR bot runs, giving you feedback before submitting a PR.
Usage
/review <skill-name> [--type code|security|youth]
Arguments:
skill-name: Name of the skill to review (must exist inplugins/)--type: Optional filter to run only specific review type(s)
Type Options
| Flag | Reviews Run |
|---|---|
| (none) | All reviews (code + security + youth) |
--type code |
Code quality and structure only |
--type security |
Security checks only |
--type youth |
Content appropriateness only |
Examples
/review pinpoint # Run all reviews
/review pedro-pathing --type code # Code review only
/review decode --type security # Security review only
Process
When this command is invoked:
-
Validate the skill exists
- Check
plugins/<skill-name>/directory exists
- Check
-
Load review skills
- Load
code-reviewskill (unless filtered out) - Load
security-reviewskill (unless filtered out) - Load
youth-safety-reviewskill (unless filtered out)
- Load
-
Execute checks
- Run each check defined in the loaded review skills
- Categorize results as pass (✓), warning (⚠), or error (✗)
-
Output structured report
- Show results grouped by review type
- Include pass/warn/fail counts per type
- Show overall summary
Output Format
Reviewing skill: pinpoint
=== Code Review ===
Structure:
✓ plugin.json exists and valid
✓ SKILL.md exists with frontmatter
✓ Name matches across files
✓ CHANGELOG.md exists with [Unreleased] section
Content Quality:
✓ Description includes WHAT and WHEN
✓ Under 500 lines (127 lines)
✓ Has Quick Start section
⚠ Missing Anti-Patterns section
✓ Has code examples
Marketplace:
✓ Listed in marketplace.json
✓ Version matches plugin.json
Code Review: 9/10 passed (1 warning)
=== Security Review ===
Credentials:
✓ No hardcoded API keys
✓ No hardcoded passwords
✓ No WiFi credentials
Configuration:
✓ Allowed FTC IPs only (192.168.43.1)
✓ No absolute paths
✓ No path traversal patterns
Code Injection:
✓ No eval/exec of user input
✓ No unsanitized shell commands
Security Review: 8/8 passed
=== Youth Safety Review ===
Language:
✓ No profanity detected
✓ Variable names appropriate
⚠ "killer_shot" may be flagged - verify context
Personal Info:
✓ No student names
✓ No school names
Content:
✓ Examples use neutral naming
Youth Safety Review: 4/5 passed (1 warning)
=== Summary ===
Code Review: 9/10 (1 warning)
Security Review: 8/8 (passed)
Youth Safety: 4/5 (1 warning)
Overall: PASSED with 2 warnings
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 · 157 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 87582542af18
review is a command published in the GitHub repository ncssm-robotics/ftc-claude (4 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,017 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.