claude-scaffold: Command for Claude Code

.claude/commands/review.md

review is a command for Claude Code from pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold. It costs 0 tokens per session (231 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A command that reviews code changes on the current Git branch or in specified files. It runs static checks and produces a structured review report.

In plain words
What is it for?
Reviewing all changes against the main branch, or reviewing a directory or file with commands such as /review src/module/.
Why use it?
It gathers changed files and checks them systematically, reducing the need to inspect every change manually. It also flags changes involving authentication, databases, external APIs, or user input for a separate security review.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: installed under .claude/. Also seen: mentions Claude Code.

This is pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold's own configuration. It tells Claude Code how to work on claude-scaffold itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything claude-scaffold configures →

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold/main/.claude/commands/review.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold/review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 231 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00000 $0.00231
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.00115
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00046
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00023

Measured 9d ago against content hash 2e75750ebe96, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

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 9d 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.

.claude/commands/review.md · 30 lines

What it actually says

/review

Runs the code-reviewer agent on the current branch or specified files.

Usage

/review                    # review all changes vs main
/review src/module/        # review specific directory
/review src/module/file.py # review specific file

Instructions for Claude Code

  1. Run static analysis first:
uv run ruff check . --output-format=concise
uv run mypy src/ --no-error-summary
  1. Get changed files:
git diff --name-only main...HEAD
  1. Read each changed file and apply the code-reviewer agent checklist
  2. Produce the structured review report defined in agents/code-reviewer.md
  3. If no files changed vs main, review the files specified in the command argument
  4. If any changed file touches authentication, database queries, external API calls, or user-controlled input — append a note at the end of the review report: "Security-sensitive changes detected. Run /security-review for a dedicated vulnerability scan (SQL injection, XSS, auth flaws, insecure data handling)."
Changes

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.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 30 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 2e75750ebe96

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository pyramidheadshark/claude-scaffold (4 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 231 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.