Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to richard-luc/KiCAD-Schematic-Manipulation. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/richard-luc/KiCAD-Schematic-Manipulation/main/.claude/commands/dev/review-implementation.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/richard-luc/KiCAD-Schematic-ManipulationWrote 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/richard-luc/kicad-schematic-manipulation/review-implementation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/richard-luc/kicad-schematic-manipulation/review-implementation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/richard-luc/kicad-schematic-manipulation/review-implementation.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 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.01316 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00658 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00263 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
review-implementation 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review-implementation — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 172 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Implementation Command - kicad-sch-api
Usage
/review-implementation [component]
Description
Performs comprehensive code review and analysis of kicad-sch-api implementation, focusing on professional quality, performance, and API design.
Parameters
component(optional): Specific component to review (core,library,mcp,utils,tests)--performance: Focus on performance analysis--api-design: Focus on API usability review--format-preservation: Focus on format preservation validation
Review Areas
1. Core Library Review
/review-implementation core
Focuses on:
- S-expression parsing accuracy and performance
- Component management API design and efficiency
- Schematic operations completeness and validation
- Type system correctness and usability
- Error handling comprehensiveness and clarity
Key Questions:
- Does the API feel intuitive and pythonic?
- Are bulk operations efficient for large schematics?
- Is format preservation truly exact?
- Do validation errors provide actionable feedback?
2. Library Management Review
/review-implementation library
Focuses on:
- Symbol caching performance and accuracy
- Library discovery robustness across platforms
- Multi-source integration (future: DigiKey, SnapEDA)
- Cache invalidation and persistence
Key Questions:
- Does caching provide measurable performance improvement?
- Is library discovery reliable across different KiCAD installations?
- Are cache miss scenarios handled gracefully?
3. MCP Integration Review
/review-implementation mcp
Focuses on:
- Tool completeness for AI agent workflows
- Error handling quality for agent consumption
- Python bridge reliability and performance
- TypeScript integration professional standards
Key Questions:
- Do MCP tools cover all essential schematic operations?
- Are error messages clear enough for AI agents to understand?
- Is the Python bridge robust against subprocess failures?
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 172 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A a55e90ed0404
review-implementation is a command published in the GitHub repository richard-luc/KiCAD-Schematic-Manipulation (0 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,316 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-implementation, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
esp-teach
One-time project setup -- discover hardware, find datasheets, persist context to CLAUDE.md.
show_diff
Call the showdiff MCP tool to show me a side-by-side visual diff (it returns an image in the chat). If I passed a checkpoint sha in $ARGUMENTS, diff that checkpoint; otherwise show my current uncommitted changes.
refactor-clean
Safely identify and remove dead code with test verification at every step.
label-pr
You MUST label PR $ARGUMENTS right now. Do NOT ask for more information — execute all steps immediately.
gsd-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
gsd:pr-branch
Create a clean PR branch by filtering out .planning/ commits — ready for code review.