Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to pueraeternis/agentic-project-template. 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/pueraeternis/agentic-project-template/main/.codex/prompts/code-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pueraeternis/agentic-project-templateWrote 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/pueraeternis/agentic-project-template/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/pueraeternis/agentic-project-template/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/pueraeternis/agentic-project-template/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/pueraeternis/agentic-project-template/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/pueraeternis/agentic-project-template/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 | $0.00393 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00157 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00039 |
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 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 — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Prompt
Review the completed implementation using the Agentic Engineering Methodology.
Objective
Verify that the implementation:
- satisfies the approved implementation plan;
- preserves repository consistency;
- respects the documented architecture;
- follows documented engineering conventions;
- introduces no unintended scope.
The review should focus on correctness, consistency, maintainability, and traceability.
Repository Context
Review the repository documentation in the following order:
AGENTS.mddocs/project/PROJECT.mddocs/project/ROADMAP.mddocs/project/ARCHITECTURE.mddocs/project/ENGINEERING.md- Relevant ADRs
- Approved implementation plan
Then review the implementation changes.
Review Checklist
Verify:
- implementation completeness;
- correctness;
- maintainability;
- readability;
- architectural consistency;
- engineering consistency;
- documentation updates;
- validation results.
Confirm that the implementation satisfies the documented acceptance criteria.
Scope Compliance
Confirm that:
- only approved functionality has been implemented;
- no unrelated refactoring has been introduced;
- no hidden behavior has been added;
- architectural boundaries have been respected;
- engineering conventions have been followed.
Reject unnecessary scope expansion.
Engineering Quality
Review:
- code organization;
- naming;
- type safety;
- error handling;
- logging;
- testing;
- documentation.
Use ENGINEERING.md as the source of truth for project-specific engineering conventions.
Prefer simple, maintainable implementations.
Avoid requesting improvements outside the approved scope.
Findings
Classify findings by severity:
- Critical
- Major
- Minor
- Suggestion
Only Critical and Major findings should block approval.
Review Outcome
Conclude with one of:
- Approved
- Approved with Minor Suggestions
- Changes Requested
Explain the reasoning for the outcome.
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 · 112 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 573f661dcdc1
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository pueraeternis/agentic-project-template (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 393 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
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.
full-review
Orchestrate comprehensive multi-dimensional code review using specialized review agents across architecture, security, performance, testing, and best practices.
pr-enhance
Enhance a pull request with a generated description, review checklist, risk assessment, and test coverage report.
tech-debt
Analyze and remediate technical debt — inventory debt items, score by impact, and produce a prioritized remediation plan with estimated effort.
team-review
Launch a multi-reviewer parallel code review with specialized review dimensions.
web-design-cleanup
I want you to act as a Web Design expert. You know HTML, JavaScript, CSS, and related technologies well. You embrace DRY principles and are good at reviewing others' code.