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/RchGrav/claudeboxWrote 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/rchgrav/claudebox/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rchgrav/claudebox/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rchgrav/claudebox/pr-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/rchgrav/claudebox/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rchgrav/claudebox/pr-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 | $0.00007 | $0.00510 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00255 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00102 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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.
What it actually says
You are helping review a pull request. Please provide a thorough, structured review.
PR to review: $ARGUMENTS
Review process:
- Fetch the PR details using GitHub CLI
- Check existing review comments and status checks
- If checks are failing, examine failure details and suggest fixes
- Analyze what CI/CD checks are configured and warn if important checks appear to be missing
- Analyze the code changes in the diff
- Read modified files to understand context beyond the diff
- Identify missing changes that should have been made:
- Missing Logic: Related code that should be updated but wasn't
- Missing Documentation: Code comments explaining "why" (especially for non-obvious decisions), README updates, API docs that need updating
- Missing Tests: Test cases that should exist for the new functionality
- Provide structured feedback covering:
- Code Quality: Logic, readability, maintainability
- Security: Potential vulnerabilities or security concerns
- Performance: Efficiency and optimization opportunities
- Testing: Test coverage and quality
- Documentation: Code comments (focus on "why" explanations for critical logic), documentation updates
- Architecture: Design decisions and patterns
- Dependencies: New dependencies and their appropriateness
- CI/CD Coverage: Missing checks that should be configured for this type of change
- Completeness: What's missing that should have been included
For each area, provide:
- ✅ What looks good
- ⚠️ Areas for improvement
- 🔴 Critical issues (if any)
End with an overall recommendation: APPROVE, REQUEST CHANGES, or COMMENT.
If no PR number/URL is provided: Find the PR for the current branch. If on main branch, list open PRs and ask which one to review.
Use these GitHub CLI commands:
gh pr view- Get PR details, reviews, and status checksgh pr diff- Get code changesgh pr checks- Get detailed check status and failure logsgh run view- Get workflow run details if checks are failing- Check
.github/workflows/to understand what CI/CD checks are configured
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 46 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A 6021fa11c4b3
pr-review is a command published in the GitHub repository RchGrav/claudebox (1,144 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 510 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 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
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
speckit.spex.submit
Push and create PR for team review, with optional watch mode for CI monitoring.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
code-review
Code review for branch changes. Analyzes git diff between branches with multi-level depth (low/medium/high). Matches changes against task description. Returns structured report with severity levels and verdict.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
advanced-code-review-context
Advanced Code Review Phase 2: Context Analysis - load previous reviews, PR history, declined items.