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/rohittcodes/claude-plugin-suiteWrote 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/rohittcodes/claude-plugin-suite/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rohittcodes/claude-plugin-suite/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rohittcodes/claude-plugin-suite/code-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/rohittcodes/claude-plugin-suite/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rohittcodes/claude-plugin-suite/code-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 | $0.00009 | $0.00412 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00165 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 7d 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
Code Review Command
Perform comprehensive code review with quality, security, and best practices analysis.
Context
- Review type: $1 (security|performance|quality|all - default: all)
- Focus area: $2 (specific module or component)
- Recent changes: !
git diff HEAD~1 - Code metrics: !
find . -name "*.js" -o -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.py" | wc -l
Code Review Process
1. Code Quality Analysis
- Code structure and organization
- Design patterns and best practices
- Code readability and maintainability
- Documentation and comments quality
2. Security Review
- Vulnerability assessment
- Input validation and sanitization
- Authentication and authorization
- Data protection and privacy
3. Performance Analysis
- Algorithm efficiency
- Resource utilization
- Database query optimization
- Caching strategies
4. Best Practices Validation
- Coding standards compliance
- Error handling patterns
- Testing coverage and quality
- Version control practices
Review Criteria
- Security: OWASP guidelines, secure coding practices
- Performance: Efficiency, scalability, resource usage
- Quality: Maintainability, readability, documentation
- Standards: Team coding standards, industry best practices
Expected Outcome
- Comprehensive code review report
- Prioritized improvement recommendations
- Security vulnerability assessment
- Performance optimization suggestions
Review Feedback
- Critical Issues: Immediate attention required
- High Priority: Should be addressed before merge
- Medium Priority: Address in next iteration
- Low Priority: Future improvement opportunities
Approval Criteria
Code approved when:
- No critical security vulnerabilities
- Performance benchmarks met
- Code quality standards satisfied
- All tests passing
- Documentation complete
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 67 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e72470aa0ef7
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository rohittcodes/claude-plugin-suite (29 stars, last pushed 11mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 412 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-21.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.