code-review

code-review is a command for Claude Code from nmime/motiv-buy. It costs 0 tokens per session (2,418 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

Performs focused multi-agent code review that surfaces only critical, high-impact findings for solo developers using AI tools.

Command for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/nmime/motiv-buy/code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nmime/motiv-buy

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nmime/motiv-buy/code-review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/nmime/motiv-buy/code-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nmime/motiv-buy/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nmime/motiv-buy/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,418 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00000 $0.02418
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.01209
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00484
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00242

Measured today against content hash 197d42854c8b, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 today.

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.

.claude/commands/code-review.md · 352 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 352 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

/code-review

Performs focused multi-agent code review that surfaces only critical, high-impact findings for solo developers using AI tools.

Core Philosophy

This command prioritizes needle-moving discoveries over exhaustive lists. Every finding must demonstrate significant impact on:

  • System reliability & stability
  • Security vulnerabilities with real exploitation risk
  • Performance bottlenecks affecting user experience
  • Architectural decisions blocking future scalability
  • Critical technical debt threatening maintainability

🚨 Critical Findings Only

Issues that could cause production failures, security breaches, or severe user impact within 48 hours.

🔥 High-Value Improvements

Changes that unlock new capabilities, remove significant constraints, or improve metrics by >25%.

❌ Excluded from Reports

Minor style issues, micro-optimizations (<10%), theoretical best practices, edge cases affecting <1% of users.

Auto-Loaded Project Context:

@/CLAUDE.md @/docs/ai-context/project-structure.md @/docs/ai-context/docs-overview.md

Command Execution

User provided context: "$ARGUMENTS"

Step 1: Understand User Intent & Gather Context

Parse the Request

Analyze the natural language input to determine:

  1. What to review: Parse file paths, component names, feature descriptions, or commit references
  2. Review focus: Identify any specific concerns mentioned (security, performance, etc.)
  3. Scope inference: Intelligently determine the breadth of review needed

Examples of intent parsing:

  • "the authentication flow" → Find all files related to auth across the codebase
  • "voice pipeline implementation" → Locate voice processing components
  • "recent changes" → Parse git history for relevant commits
  • "the API routes" → Identify all API endpoint files
Read Relevant Documentation

Before allocating agents, read the documentation to understand:

  1. Use /docs/ai-context/docs-overview.md to identify relevant docs
  2. Read documentation related to the code being reviewed:
    • Architecture docs for subsystem understanding
    • API documentation for integration points
    • Security guidelines for sensitive areas
    • Performance considerations for critical paths
  3. Build a mental model of risks, constraints, and priorities

Read the full file on GitHub · 352 lines

Changes

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.

  1. today First seen · 352 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 197d42854c8b

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository nmime/motiv-buy (0 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,418 tokens. 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 2026-09-04.