Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/main/.claude/commands/validation/system-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeletonWrote 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/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/system-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/system-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/system-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/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/system-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton/system-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 | $0.00007 | $0.01963 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00981 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00393 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00196 |
Grade A, and why
system-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 10d 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 — 334 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
System Review: Process Improvement Analysis
Inputs
Plan: $ARGUMENTS_1 (path to plan)
Execution Report: $ARGUMENTS_2 (path to execution report)
Example:
/piv:system-review .claude/agents/plans/example-feature-validation.md .claude/agents/execution-reports/example-feature-validation-report.md
Purpose
Analyze the implementation process to identify:
- Plan quality and completeness
- Execution efficiency
- Validation effectiveness
- Process improvements needed
- Patterns to document
This is NOT about the code quality (that's code-review). This is about improving the PIV PROCESS.
Analysis Process
1. Compare Plan vs Actual
Read the plan:
- What was planned?
- What patterns were documented?
- What validation commands were specified?
Read the execution report:
- What was actually implemented?
- What deviations occurred?
- What challenges were encountered?
- What was the plan quality score?
Identify gaps:
- What was missing from the plan?
- What was inaccurate in the plan?
- What caused rework or delays?
2. Analyze Plan Quality
Completeness:
- Were all necessary files listed?
- Were all patterns documented?
- Were all validation commands included?
- Was context sufficient?
Accuracy:
- Were code examples correct?
- Were pattern references accurate?
- Were file paths correct?
- Were dependencies documented?
One-Pass Implementation:
- Did the plan enable one-pass implementation?
- If not, why not?
- What was missing?
Score Plan Quality:
- Context completeness: X/10
- Accuracy: X/10
- Implementation readiness: X/10
- Overall Plan Quality: X/10
3. Analyze Execution Efficiency
Time Tracking:
- Planning time: X hours
- Implementation time: X hours
- Validation time: X hours
- Total time: X hours
Estimated vs Actual:
- Estimated: X hours
- Actual: X hours
- Variance: X%
Rework Analysis:
- How much rework was needed?
- What caused the rework?
- Could it have been prevented?
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 334 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A b18fa4a9cbb5
system-review is a command published in the GitHub repository plipowczan/claude-piv-skeleton (4 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 1,963 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 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
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.