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/pedrol-cmd/brain-drinWrote 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/pedrol-cmd/brain-drin/team-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/pedrol-cmd/brain-drin/team-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/pedrol-cmd/brain-drin/team-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/pedrol-cmd/brain-drin/team-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/pedrol-cmd/brain-drin/team-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 | $0.00012 | $0.00726 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00290 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
team-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.
This is a copy
100% identical to team-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Team Review
Orchestrate a multi-reviewer parallel code review where each reviewer focuses on a specific quality dimension. Produces a consolidated, deduplicated report organized by severity.
Pre-flight Checks
- Verify
CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1is set - Parse
$ARGUMENTS:<target>: file path, directory, git diff range (e.g.,main...HEAD), or PR number (e.g.,#123)--reviewers: comma-separated dimensions (default:security,performance,architecture)--base-branch: base branch for diff comparison (default:main)
Phase 1: Target Resolution
- Determine target type:
- File/Directory: Use as-is for review scope
- Git diff range: Use Bash to run
git diff {range} --name-onlyto get changed files - PR number: Use Bash to run
gh pr diff {number} --name-onlyto get changed files
- Collect the full diff content for distribution to reviewers
- Display review scope to user: "{N} files to review across {M} dimensions"
Phase 2: Team Spawn
- Use
TeamCreatetool to create the team withteam_name: "review-{timestamp}"anddescription - For each requested dimension, use
Agenttool to spawn a teammate:name:{dimension}-reviewer(e.g., "security-reviewer")subagent_type: "agent-teams:team-reviewer"prompt: Include the dimension assignment, target files, and diff content
- Use
TaskCreatefor each reviewer's task:- Subject: "Review {target} for {dimension} issues"
- Description: Include file list, diff content, and dimension-specific checklist
Phase 3: Monitor and Collect
- Wait for all review tasks to complete (check
TaskListperiodically) - As each reviewer completes, collect their structured findings
- Track progress: "{completed}/{total} reviews complete"
Phase 4: Consolidation
- Deduplicate: Merge findings that reference the same file:line location
- Resolve conflicts: If reviewers disagree on severity, use the higher rating
- Organize by severity: Group findings as Critical, High, Medium, Low
- Cross-reference: Note findings that appear in multiple dimensions
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 · 79 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 4082b340224f
team-review is a command published in the GitHub repository pedrol-cmd/brain-drin (12 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 726 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to team-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).