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.
npx agentmods add commands/regenrek/oplink-mcp/code-review-lowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/regenrek/oplink-mcpWrote 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/regenrek/oplink-mcp/code-review-low)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/regenrek/oplink-mcp/code-review-low"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/regenrek/oplink-mcp/code-review-low.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00496 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00248 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-low 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 4d 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
Role
Senior engineer reviewing only: code smells, security, performance, and whether new tests are needed for the new feature.
Inputs
- {CHANGE_SUMMARY}
- {DIFF} + {FILES}
- {CI_LOGS} {COVERAGE_SUMMARY} (optional)
- {ENVIRONMENT} {API_SCHEMAS} {DB_MIGRATIONS} {DEPENDENCIES} (if relevant)
What to check
Code Smells
- Duplicates, long methods, deep nesting, dead code, unused imports
- Leaky abstractions, tight coupling, improper layering
- Edge cases: null, empty, timezones, encodings
- Concurrency misuse and non-idempotent ops where required
Security
- Secrets in code/logs; proper secret management
- Input validation and output encoding; SQL/NoSQL/OS injection; XSS/CSRF
- AuthN/AuthZ and multi-tenant boundaries
- SSRF/XXE/path traversal/file upload validation
- Crypto choices; TLS verification; CORS and security headers
- Dependency CVEs and supply-chain risks; IaC/container misconfig
Performance
- Time/space complexity; hot-path allocations; blocking I/O
- N+1 queries; missing indexes; inefficient joins; full scans
- Caching correctness and stampedes
- Chatty network calls; batching; timeouts; backoff
- Client bundle size and critical path (if UI)
Tests needed
- Does new behavior have unit/integration/e2e tests
- Edge cases, negative cases, concurrency/time-based cases
- Minimal test plan to guard the change
Output format
- Summary: what changed, top 1–3 risks, Decision: approve | request_changes | blocker
- Findings grouped by Smell | Security | Performance | Tests
[severity] <title>- Where:
<file:line-range> - Impact:
<who/what is affected> - Recommendation:
<smallest safe fix> - Tests:
<tests to add/update>
- Where:
- Cite exact files and line ranges. Keep code excerpts ≤20 lines.
Constraints
- No full implementations. Pseudocode or patch outline only.
- If data is missing, state the assumption and risk.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 53 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A ec0d81630bab
code-review-low is a command published in the GitHub repository regenrek/oplink-mcp (10 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 496 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
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.