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/review-pr.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/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nicepkg/vsync/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nicepkg/vsync/review-pr/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/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nicepkg/vsync/review-pr.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 | $0.00010 | $0.01049 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00420 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 — 174 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Pull Request
Review the GitHub Pull Request: $ARGUMENTS
Context
- Current branch: !
git branch --show-current - Repository: !
gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown"
Step 1: Fetch PR Details
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS
Extract and understand:
- Title: Does it follow Angular convention?
- Description: Is the change clearly explained?
- Files changed: What's the scope of changes?
- Linked issues: What problem does this solve?
Step 2: Check PR Title Format
Required format: <type>(<scope>): <subject>
Valid Examples
feat(website): add dark mode toggle
fix(website): resolve hydration mismatch
docs: update installation guide
chore(deps): update dependencies
Common Issues
- ❌ Missing type prefix
- ❌ Subject starts with uppercase
- ❌ Subject ends with period
- ❌ Using emoji in title
- ❌ Title too long (>100 chars)
Step 3: Review the Diff
# View PR diff
gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS
# View files changed
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json files -q '.files[].path'
# Check out PR locally for deeper review
gh pr checkout $ARGUMENTS
Step 4: Review Checklist
PR Meta
- Title: Follows Angular convention (
type(scope): subject) - Description: Clearly explains what and why
- Issue link: References related issue (
Fixes #123) - Scope: Changes are focused, not mixing concerns
Code Quality
- Logic: Changes are correct and handle edge cases
- Types: TypeScript types are accurate
- Style: Follows project conventions
- No debug code: No console.log, commented code, TODOs
Security
- No secrets: No API keys, tokens, or credentials
- Input validation: User inputs are sanitized
- No vulnerabilities: No obvious security issues
Project Conventions
- Config: Uses
site-info.tsfor configurable values - Imports: Uses
~/path alias - UI components: Doesn't modify
components/ui/ - Commit messages: All commits follow Angular convention
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 · 174 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A fd07dfd0aa81
review-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository nicepkg/vsync (61 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 1,049 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.