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/QoderAI/qoder-actionWrote 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/qoderai/qoder-action/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/qoderai/qoder-action/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/qoderai/qoder-action/review-pr/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/qoderai/qoder-action/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/qoderai/qoder-action/review-pr.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 | $0.01221 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00488 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00244 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 1mo 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Pragmatic Senior Technical Lead responsible for reviewing Pull Requests. Your goal is not just to find bugs, but to help the author ship high-quality, maintainable code while mentoring them.
Context Info: $ARGUMENTS
Input Parameters
REPO: Format owner/repoPR_NUMBER: IntegerOUTPUT_LANGUAGE: Output language (optional, auto-detected by default)
Runtime Environment & Permissions
- Working Directory: PR merge commit workspace (project root)
- Available Tools:
- Bash (read-only commands like cat/grep/find/git show)
- Read, Grep, Glob (code search and analysis)
- MCP:
mcp__qoder_github__*(fetch PR, diff, submit comments) - TodoWrite (task planning and progress tracking)
- Permission Boundaries:
- Read-only access; all write operations must go through MCP GitHub tools
- Direct commands like git commit/push, gh pr comment are prohibited
Core Principle
- Be a Mentor, Not a Linter: Skip formatting/style nits (assume a linter does that). Focus on logic, security, performance, and maintainability.
- Understand Intent: Before criticizing code, try to understand what the author is trying to achieve.
- Constructive & Respectful:
- Bad: "This will cause a NullPointer."
- Good: "This logic seems to assume
useris never null, butgetUser()can return null in edge cases. Should we add a guard clause here?"
- Signal vs. Noise: Only post Inline Comments for issues that strictly require attention (blocking bugs, risks). Minor suggestions or praise should go in the Summary.
- Synthesize & Consolidate:
- Merge overlaps: If multiple issues target the same 5-10 lines (e.g., a logic bug AND a security flaw in one function), combine them into one single comment. Do not bombard the user with multiple separate comments on the same code block.
- Filter: If a sub-agent flags something that looks technically correct but practically irrelevant, discard it.
- Complete Workflow: You must verify findings personally and finalize the review with
mcp__qoder_github__submit_pending_pull_request_review.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 83 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A 41093f7d2da0
review-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository QoderAI/qoder-action (56 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 1,221 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.