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/Pharaoh-so/pharaoh-mcpWrote 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/pharaoh-so/pharaoh-mcp/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/pharaoh-so/pharaoh-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/pharaoh-so/pharaoh-mcp/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/pharaoh-so/pharaoh-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/pharaoh-so/pharaoh-mcp/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 | $0.00006 | $0.04927 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.01971 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00985 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00493 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 353 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review with Pharaoh
The definitive code review, for any codebase. Architecture-aware, branch-aware, multi-agent, adversarial. Five phases that combine Pharaoh's knowledge graph with parallel specialized reviewers and an independent second opinion from a different model. Every phase works without Pharaoh too; Pharaoh makes the architecture picture exact and cheap where it maps the repo.
A review always reaches a verdict. When a phase needs something your client doesn't have (Pharaoh, a shell, subagents, a second model), it says how to carry on without it: do that, and name what was missing in the review output. Ask the user only when someone is there to answer.
Final verdict: SHIP / SHIP WITH CHANGES / BLOCK
When to Use
Before merging any branch. Before opening any PR. When reviewing changes that touch shared modules, export new functions, modify core data flows, or claim to implement a spec.
Phase 0 — Git Context
Goal: Know exactly what changed and where you are. This phase is mandatory and runs before anything else.
No shell, or no git? Review the diff you were given (a file, a pasted patch, a pull request's changes): take the changed files and touched modules from it, skip to step 5, and say in the review output that branch context wasn't available.
-
Detect the current environment:
git rev-parse --show-toplevel # repo root (may be a worktree) git worktree list # detect if running in a worktree git branch --show-current # current branch name git log --oneline -1 # latest commit -
Determine the base (where this branch diverged from the branch it merges into). The target is the first of these that resolves:
TARGET=$(gh pr view --json baseRefName --jq '"origin/" + .baseRefName' 2>/dev/null) # the open PR's target branch [ -n "$TARGET" ] || TARGET=$(git symbolic-ref -q --short refs/remotes/origin/HEAD) # the default branch, set by git clone [ -n "$TARGET" ] || for b in origin/main origin/master main master; do git rev-parse -q --verify "$b" >/dev/null && TARGET=$b && break done BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD "$TARGET") && echo "base: $BASE"If no base comes out, ask which branch this merges into (with no one to ask, review the uncommitted changes from step 4 and say the base was unknown). An empty base makes every diff below come out empty, and the review would report no changes. If your shell doesn't keep variables between commands, set
BASEto the printed commit at the start of each one.
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.
- yesterday Changed · +55 lines c2d73bd85e10
- 4d ago First seen · 298 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A f011c1d759a8
review is a command published in the GitHub repository Pharaoh-so/pharaoh-mcp (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 4,927 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 2026-10-21.
Other commands, from other repositories
grasp-review-pr
Full PR review with blast-radius, suggested questions, and surprising-connections check.
grasp-review-delta
Detect changes since base branch and produce a risk-scored impact report.
sruja-pre-merge-review
Structured review workflow before merging changes. Produces actionable feedback with architecture grounding.
brief
Brief a PR, MR or the current branch with Punchcard — the reviewer's orientation before the review, never a review.
pr
Review a GitHub PR or GitLab MR with Punchcard and post the review into it.
grasp-build-graph
Run graspanalyze + graspminimalcontext for the current repo, store the sessionid, and report a 100-token orientation.