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/outfitter-dev/blzWrote 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/outfitter-dev/blz/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/outfitter-dev/blz/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/outfitter-dev/blz/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/outfitter-dev/blz/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/outfitter-dev/blz/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 | $0.00008 | $0.00668 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00267 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00067 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
blz Code Review
Please perform a comprehensive code review of: $ARGUMENTS
Review Focus Areas
1. Rust Code Quality
- Safety: Check for unsafe blocks, unwrap(), panic!(), and other dangerous patterns
- Performance: Identify potential bottlenecks, unnecessary allocations, or inefficient patterns
- Error Handling: Verify proper error propagation and user-friendly error messages
- Memory Management: Look for potential leaks or inefficient memory usage
- Async Patterns: Check async/await usage follows project conventions
2. Architecture & Design
- Separation of Concerns: Ensure blz-core, blz-cli, and blz-mcp boundaries are respected
- API Design: Check for consistency with existing patterns and interfaces
- Configuration: Verify proper handling of config files and environment variables
- Testing: Ensure adequate test coverage for new functionality
3. CLI-Specific Concerns
- User Experience: Check command line interface consistency and usability
- Help Text: Verify documentation accuracy and completeness
- Output Formatting: Ensure consistent text and JSON output formats
- Backward Compatibility: Flag any breaking changes to existing commands
4. Performance Impact
- Search Latency: Ensure changes don't negatively impact search performance
- Index Building: Check that indexing speed remains within acceptable bounds
- Memory Usage: Verify no significant memory footprint increases
- Startup Time: Ensure CLI startup remains fast
5. Security & Robustness
- Input Validation: Check for proper validation of user inputs
- File System Access: Verify safe handling of file operations
- Network Requests: Check HTTP client usage and error handling
- Data Integrity: Ensure cache and index data integrity is maintained
Review Deliverables
Please provide:
- Executive Summary
- Overall assessment of code quality
- Major concerns or blockers
- Recommendation (approve/request changes/block)
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 · 82 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 4d232254a54e
review is a command published in the GitHub repository outfitter-dev/blz (27 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 668 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
format-sync
Mirror a data-format change across the Rust and Node implementations, prove conformance, and add a fixture.
rust-review
Comprehensive Rust code review for ownership, lifetimes, error handling, unsafe usage, and idiomatic patterns. Invokes the rust-reviewer agent.
devkit.java.code-review
Validates Java code quality for enterprise Spring applications with security, performance, architecture and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing code changes or before merging pull requests.
devkit.typescript.code-review
Provides comprehensive TypeScript monorepo code review for Nx workspaces including NestJS backend, React web, and React Native mobile apps. Use when reviewing architecture, boundaries, security, performance, CI/CD and Nx-specific practices.
cargo-clippy
Command "cargo-clippy" from olorehq/olore, covering cargo-clippy(1), name, description and see also.
review-rust
Focused Rust/Tauri backend review with rust-backend-architect (Primary Owner).