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/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/random6913/claude-code-superkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/random6913/claude-code-superkit/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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/random6913/claude-code-superkit/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 | $0.00020 | $0.02410 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00964 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00482 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00241 |
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 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 — 196 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Unified Orchestrated Code Review
Detect changed files, dispatch specialized reviewer agents in parallel with injected git context, independently validate every finding, and produce a deduplicated report. Optionally post the results to a GitHub PR.
Target
$ARGUMENTS
Hard Rules
- Review ONLY the diff scope — changed lines plus their surrounding context. Pre-existing issues outside the diff are out of scope (exception:
--fullreviews all tracked files). - Dispatch each agent at most once, and only agents that exist in
.claude/agents/. - Every HIGH/MEDIUM-confidence finding passes independent validation (Step 5) before reaching the report. LOW-confidence (<60) items skip validation and go to Open Questions — never silently dropped.
- goal-verifier produces a verdict report (PASS / NEEDS-ATTENTION / NEEDS-REMEDIATION), not severity findings — its output bypasses Steps 4–6 validation and lands in its own report section.
- Zero confirmed findings is a valid outcome — report "clean" honestly, do not pad.
Step 1 — Parse Arguments and Detect Changes
Flags: --comment → post GitHub PR comments (default: terminal only). Remaining argument → diff target.
Diff base:
PR#NNNor a number →gh pr diff $TARGET --name-only- branch name →
git diff --name-only $TARGET...HEAD --full→ all tracked files (git ls-files)- empty →
git diff --name-only HEAD~1
Gather context (run in parallel):
git diff --stat ${BASE}...HEAD # changed files + line counts
git diff ${BASE}...HEAD # full hunks for agent injection
git log --oneline -5 # intent
gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --json title,body 2>/dev/null # PR mode only
Build a REVIEW_CONTEXT block:
=== REVIEW CONTEXT ===
## PR Info (if available)
Title / Description (first 500 chars)
## Changed Files (N files, +X/-Y)
<git diff --stat>
## Recent Commits (intent)
<git log --oneline -5>
## Diff Hunks
<diff, truncated to 8000 chars per agent if needed>
=== END CONTEXT ===
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 · 196 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A d58386879ef0
review is a command published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (3 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 2,410 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
align
Context-aware alignment. In plan mode it audits the active plan and folds the amendments in. Otherwise it reviews the branch, a named branch, or a pull request against Ion's principles, authors a fix plan, and after approval implements and commits the fixes.
ship
Branch, commit, open PR, gather Claude + every enabled AI reviewer (Copilot, CodeRabbit, etc.), fix/justify/resolve every finding, loop until clean, then merge. Run only when implementation is finished AND the owner has said to ship (e.g. "ship it") — never self-invoke just because the work looks done. To design and…
work-pr
Creates a complete and well-documented Pull Request.
pr-enhance
Write or improve a pull request description, checklist, and review aids.
aitask-web-merge
Merge completed Claude Web branches to main and archive task data.
review
Review staged changes before committing.