Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nicepkg/vsync. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nicepkg/vsync/main/.claude/commands/code-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nicepkg/vsyncWrote 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/nicepkg/vsync/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nicepkg/vsync/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nicepkg/vsync/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/nicepkg/vsync/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nicepkg/vsync/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 | $0.00011 | $0.00818 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00327 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00164 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00082 |
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 1mo 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Review the code changes for: $ARGUMENTS
Context
- Current branch: !
git branch --show-current - Git status: !
git status --short - Recent changes: !
git diff --stat HEAD~1 2>/dev/null || git diff --stat
Review Checklist
1. Code Quality
- Readability: Is the code easy to understand?
- Simplicity: Is this the simplest solution? Any over-engineering?
- DRY: Is there duplicated code that should be abstracted?
- Naming: Are variables, functions, and files named clearly?
- Comments: Are complex sections documented? (No obvious comments)
2. Logic & Correctness
- Edge cases: Are edge cases handled (null, empty, bounds)?
- Error handling: Are errors caught and handled appropriately?
- Type safety: Are TypeScript types used correctly?
- Async/await: Are promises handled correctly? No unhandled rejections?
3. Security (OWASP Top 10)
- Injection: No SQL/command injection vulnerabilities?
- XSS: User input properly sanitized for display?
- Sensitive data: No secrets, tokens, or PII in code?
- Dependencies: No known vulnerable dependencies?
4. Performance
- Unnecessary renders: React components optimized (memo, useMemo, useCallback)?
- Bundle size: No large unnecessary imports?
- N+1 queries: No inefficient data fetching patterns?
- Memory leaks: Event listeners and subscriptions cleaned up?
5. Project Conventions
- File structure: Files in correct directories?
- Import paths: Using
~/alias correctly? - Config values: Using
site-info.tsinstead of hardcoding? - UI components: Not modifying
components/ui/(shadcn managed)?
Review Format
Provide feedback in this format:
Summary
Brief overall assessment (1-2 sentences).
Issues Found
🔴 Critical (Must Fix)
File: path/to/file.ts:123
Issue: [Description]
Suggestion: [How to fix]
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 123 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A fee595a6f908
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository nicepkg/vsync (61 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 818 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
assemble-team
Assemble a pre-built agent team for parallel work - review, feature, debug, cross-platform, full-stack, or research.
review-code
Trigger a comprehensive code review on recent changes or specified files.
code-review
Review staged git changes for bugs, security issues, and style violations.
amby.converge
Check the codebase against spec, plan, and tasks after implementing; append gap tasks, never edit code.
cg-senior-code-review
Perform deep, findings-first senior engineering code reviews of any change in any language or stack. Use when reviewing a phase, feature branch, pull request, commit, or uncommitted changes for correctness bugs, security and abuse risks, regressions to existing behavior, concurrency and lifecycle defects, performance…
dejavu-lint
Lint a proposed file edit against the symbol index — flag fabricated names + typos before write.