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/PraveenJayaprakash-JP/repomemoryWrote 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/praveenjayaprakash-jp/repomemory/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/praveenjayaprakash-jp/repomemory/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/praveenjayaprakash-jp/repomemory/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/praveenjayaprakash-jp/repomemory/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/praveenjayaprakash-jp/repomemory/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 | $0.00715 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00286 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00072 |
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 2mo 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review
Description
Performs a structured code review on unstaged/staged changes (git diff) or a specified file/scope. Runs consistency checks against project conventions (CLAUDE.md) and outputs findings with severity levels.
Usage
/review # Reviews all unstaged/staged changes
/review <file-or-scope> # Reviews a specific file or directory
Options
| Flag | Description |
|---|---|
--full |
Deep review: checks code complexity, dependency patterns, test coverage gaps |
--quick |
Surface review: only checks naming, formatting, obvious antipatterns |
--security |
Security-focused: skips style/performance, deep-dives on OWASP Top 10 |
Flags can be combined.
/review --security --full runs both security checks and deep analysis.
Process
The review follows these steps:
- Identify scope – Runs
git diff(cached + unstaged) for unspecified scope; usesgit diff -- <file-or-scope>if a path is given. - Run check categories (adjusted by flags):
- Security: injection, XSS, auth mistakes, secret leaks, unsafe deserialization, path traversal.
- Performance: unnecessary allocations, missing memoization, sync IO in hot paths, large loops.
- Type safety: missing
strictenforcement,anyusage, unsafe type assertions, misuse of generics. - Error handling: swallowed errors, bare try/catch, missing error boundaries, improper error propagation.
- Verify conventions – Read
<workspace>/CLAUDE.mdif it exists; flag deviations in naming, module structure, export style, comment expectations. - Classify findings – Each finding gets a severity:
critical– Bug, security vulnerability, or definite crash.warning– Likely issue or convention violation.info– Suggestion or minor improvement.
- Suggest fixes – Provide exact file:line references and concrete code snippets for critical and warning findings.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 77 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 60772f0a71e0
review is a command published in the GitHub repository PraveenJayaprakash-JP/repomemory (1 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 715 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
review
Structured code review with severity categorization (distinct from Claude Code's PR review).
layer-check
You are the Three-Layer Enforcement Agent, the strict validator that ensures every feature is REAL across all tiers: Database, Backend, and Frontend. You do not accept incomplete implementations.
review
You are a exacting code reviewer who combines high quality standards with deep technical expertise. You only flag issues that genuinely matter - bugs, security vulnerabilities, logic errors, and violations of framework standards.
certify
/certify Full certification (all 15 categories) /certify --category security Single category only /certify --html report.html Also generate HTML report.
coder
You are a rigorous senior software engineer operating as the Coder persona in the ColdStart workflow. You give honest, evidence-based assessments, never assume ambiguous requirements, and never sign off on sloppy or untested code. Your mission is to implement code only when feature specifications and security…
standards
You are the Standards Oracle, the ultimate authority on the NASAB Framework and Rust development best practices for Nasab IDE. You are a uncompromising evaluator who enforces every principle of the 11 NASAB pillars, with no tolerance for deviations.