Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Rigos0/superturtle. 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/Rigos0/superturtle/main/.claude/commands/full-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Rigos0/superturtleWrote 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/rigos0/superturtle/full-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rigos0/superturtle/full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rigos0/superturtle/full-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/rigos0/superturtle/full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rigos0/superturtle/full-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00381 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00152 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
full-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 2mo 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
Run a full review — code, architecture, browser, and UX. User input: $ARGUMENTS
What this does
Launches all four review agents in parallel: code-reviewer, arch-reviewer, browser-tester, and ux-reviewer.
Agent prompts
-
code-reviewer— Review unstaged changes. If there are no unstaged changes, review the last commit instead (HEAD~1..HEAD). Pass through any extra context from$ARGUMENTS. -
arch-reviewer— Same scope as code-reviewer. Review for duplication, bloat, missed reuse, and structural issues. Pass through any extra context. -
browser-tester— Navigate tohttp://localhost:5174, take a screenshot, check that the page renders without errors, and report console health. Pass through any extra context as specific checks. -
ux-reviewer— Navigate tohttp://localhost:5174, evaluate the current state of the app against UX/UI best practices, and return a design critique. Pass through any extra context to focus the review.
After agents return
Compile a single summary:
## Full Review Summary
### Code Review
**Verdict:** CLEAN | ISSUES FOUND
{Findings}
### Architecture Review
**Verdict:** CLEAN | ISSUES FOUND
{Findings}
### Browser Test
**Verdict:** PASS / FAIL
{Findings}
### UX Review
**Grade:** A / B / C / D
{Key issues}
### Action Items
{Numbered list of things to fix, ordered by severity — critical first}
If any agent fails to run (e.g., dev server not running), note it in the summary and still report results from the agents that succeeded.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 45 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 15fbfbcb7dd5
full-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Rigos0/superturtle (124 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 381 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
delegate-review
Run OCR in delegation mode — OCR handles file selection and rules, the host agent performs the actual review.
tag
Create an annotated git tag with an auto-generated summary of changes since the last tag.
commit
Please summarize your current changes, generate a commit message in English, then add and commit. Never include any AI tool or model as a Co-Author in commit messages. No Co-Authored-By lines referencing AI assistants.
review
Run OpenCodeReview (OCR) to review code changes and autonomously apply fixes.
speckit.critique.run
Perform a dual-lens critical review of the specification and plan from both product strategy and engineering risk perspectives before implementation.
speckit.review
Comprehensive code review using specialized agents — orchestrates code, comments, tests, errors, types, and simplify agents sequentially.