Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nylas/cli. 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/nylas/cli/main/.claude/commands/review-pr.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nylas/cliWrote 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/nylas/cli/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nylas/cli/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nylas/cli/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/nylas/cli/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nylas/cli/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 | $0.00021 | $0.00629 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Pull Request
Review code changes following nylas CLI standards and best practices.
Instructions
- First, get the diff to review:
git diff main...HEAD
Or for a specific PR:
gh pr diff <pr-number>
- Review checklist:
Architecture
- Changes follow hexagonal architecture (domain → ports → adapters → CLI)
- No direct dependencies on concrete implementations (use interfaces)
- New code is in the correct layer/package
Code Quality
- Functions are appropriately sized (<50 lines ideal)
- Error messages are user-friendly with suggestions
- No hardcoded credentials or secrets
- Context is passed to all API calls
CLI Standards
- Commands follow naming conventions (newXxxCmd)
- Flags have descriptions and appropriate defaults
- Help text includes examples
- Output supports --format flag where appropriate
Testing
- Unit tests added/updated for new functionality
- Mock implementations updated if interface changed
- Integration tests added for user-facing features
- Tests pass:
go test ./...
Documentation
- docs/COMMANDS.md or docs/commands/tui.md updated if user-facing changes
- Code comments for non-obvious logic
- Examples in command help text
Security
- No hardcoded API keys, tokens, or passwords
- No secrets in logs or error messages
- Input validation where user data is used
- No command injection vulnerabilities
- Run verification:
# Build
go build ./...
# Lint
golangci-lint run
# Tests
go test ./... -short
# Security scan
make security
# Integration tests (if credentials available)
go test -tags=integration ./internal/cli/integration/...
- Provide feedback in this format:
Review Output
Summary
Brief overview of the changes.
Issues Found
| Severity | File:Line | Issue | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Critical | path/file.go:42 | Description | How to fix |
| 🟡 Warning | path/file.go:100 | Description | How to fix |
| 🔵 Info | path/file.go:15 | Description | 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 · 98 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A ed344ab8639c
review-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository nylas/cli (76 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 629 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
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.
mach12:issue-review
Read a GitHub issue and all comments, review the implementation plan, and present findings.
advanced-code-review-context
Advanced Code Review Phase 2: Context Analysis - load previous reviews, PR history, declined items.
code-review-give
Give mode for code-review: Review someone else's code with multi-pass analysis and structured recommendations.
review-design-verify
Phases 4-5 of reviewing-design-docs: Interface Verification + Implementation Simulation.
plan-levels
At standard and lean, each row sets one phase's spawns. A phase with no row runs as written. A row only removes or merges agents.