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/orlando-japan/claude-code-settingWrote 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/orlando-japan/claude-code-setting/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/orlando-japan/claude-code-setting/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/orlando-japan/claude-code-setting/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/orlando-japan/claude-code-setting/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/orlando-japan/claude-code-setting/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 | $0.00014 | $0.00385 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00154 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00038 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Review the target: $ARGUMENTS
- If the argument is a file path, review that file.
- If the argument is
stagedor empty, reviewgit diff --staged. - If the argument looks like a PR number, use
gh pr diff.
Four axes, in order:
- Correctness — does it do what it claims? Are there logic bugs, off-by-ones, wrong error handling, race conditions, edge cases missed?
- Security — input validation, injection vectors, auth checks, secrets, logging of sensitive data, unsafe defaults.
- Readability — can someone unfamiliar with this code understand it in one pass? Bad names, nested control flow, magic numbers.
- Performance — only flag issues that matter at this code's actual scale. Don't micro-optimize hot-loop code you haven't measured.
Output format:
- Group findings by severity: blocker, should-fix, nit.
- For each finding:
path:linereference, one-sentence description, one-sentence suggested fix. - Nits are optional reading — keep them brief.
- End with a one-line verdict: "ship it" / "needs changes" / "blocked on X."
Do NOT:
- Rewrite the code. Review, don't re-author.
- Flag style issues the linter would catch. Trust the tooling.
- Invent problems. If you can't articulate a concrete failure mode, it's not a finding.
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 · 32 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A d7dfa89df47e
review is a command published in the GitHub repository orlando-japan/claude-code-setting (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 385 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).