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/oxygen-fragment/claude-modularWrote 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/oxygen-fragment/claude-modular/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/oxygen-fragment/claude-modular/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oxygen-fragment/claude-modular/code-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/oxygen-fragment/claude-modular/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oxygen-fragment/claude-modular/code-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00596 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00238 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00060 |
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 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
Code Review Command
2. **Code Quality Review**
- Check adherence to style guidelines
- Verify naming conventions
- Assess code organization and structure
- Review error handling patterns
3. **Security Analysis**
- Scan for security vulnerabilities
- Check for exposed secrets or credentials
- Validate input sanitization
- Review authentication and authorization
4. **Performance Review**
- Identify potential performance issues
- Check for memory leaks or resource waste
- Review database queries and optimization
- Assess caching strategies
5. **Test Coverage**
- Verify test coverage for new code
- Check test quality and scenarios
- Validate edge case handling
- Review test maintainability
6. **Documentation Review**
- Check inline documentation
- Verify API documentation updates
- Review changelog entries
- Assess user-facing documentation
# Output format:
# ✅ Code Quality: Follows conventions
# ⚠️ Security: Minor issues found
# ✅ Performance: No concerns
# ❌ Tests: Coverage below threshold
# ✅ Documentation: Complete
```
```bash
# Review specific commit or PR
/dev:code-review --commit=abc123
/dev:code-review --pr=456
# Focused review on specific changes
```
```bash
# Review with specific focus areas
/dev:code-review --focus=security,performance
# Provides detailed analysis of:
# - Security vulnerabilities
# - Performance bottlenecks
# - Optimization opportunities
```
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 · 95 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A d600b9c96ef6
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository oxygen-fragment/claude-modular (285 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 596 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-pr
PR review using parallel specialized agents for code quality, security, testing, architecture, and performance analysis. Synthesizes findings into a review report with conventional comments (praise/issue/suggestion/nitpick) and approve or request-changes verdict. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting security…
iterate-plan
Revises a plan written by create-plan from its review comments or new instructions: rewrites the plan body, leaves each comment intact and bumps the revision. Use when a plan file got feedback or its scope changed; never to start a new plan.
review-artifact-comments
Works through the review comments written into a task artifact (plan or research under .ork/tasks/TASK/): lists the open ones, asks how to proceed, then replies, resolves or hands off to iterate-plan or iterate-research, and approves the artifact once nothing is open. Use when a reviewer has commented on an artifact…
paul:audit
Run enterprise-grade architectural audit on current plan.
deep-audit.skeleton
Description: This section is populated by Bootstrap with manifest data. Required manifest fields: project.description, stack.primary, project.structure, project.subprojects, stack.orm, stack.authmethod Example output.
task-hunter.skeleton
The user's input is resolved according to the following rules.