Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to rossumai/rossum-agents. 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/rossumai/rossum-agents/master/.claude/commands/ds-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rossumai/rossum-agentsWrote 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/rossumai/rossum-agents/ds-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rossumai/rossum-agents/ds-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rossumai/rossum-agents/ds-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/rossumai/rossum-agents/ds-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rossumai/rossum-agents/ds-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 | $0.00916 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00458 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00183 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00092 |
Grade A, and why
ds-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 10d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Code Changes
Goal: Review uncommitted changes for quality issues, ensure tests pass, and produce MR-ready summary.
Scope
| Context | What to Review |
|---|---|
| No argument | Uncommitted changes; if none, review last commit |
| Commit provided | The specified commit(s) |
Review Checklist
| Category | Check For |
|---|---|
| Unused code | Dead imports, variables, unreachable branches |
| Duplication | Repeated logic that should use shared components |
| AI slop | Excessive try/catch, defensive checks in trusted paths, Any casts, style drift |
| Documentation | Changes reflected in README.md and CLAUDE.md |
| Tests | New features/bug fixes have tests; existing tests not deleted without cause |
| Breaking changes | Public API or tool signatures changed without backward compatibility |
| Tools consolidation | If tools were added, removed, or merged — see Tools Consolidation below |
| Opus prompts | If rossum_agent/prompts/ or rossum_agent/skills/ changed — see Opus Prompt Guidelines below |
Tools Consolidation
Apply when tools are added, removed, or merged in rossum_agent/tools/ or rossum_mcp/tools/:
| Principle | What to check |
|---|---|
| Efficiency | Does the consolidation reduce token overhead, tool-call round trips, or redundant functionality? |
| SOTA alignment | Is the tool design aligned with current state-of-the-art agentic patterns (e.g., fewer specialized tools vs. many narrow ones, proper use of structured outputs)? |
| Capability preservation | No previously available functionality silently dropped without justification |
| Naming clarity | Tool names and descriptions remain clear and discoverable by the agent |
Opus Prompt Guidelines
Apply when reviewing changes to rossum_agent/prompts/ or rossum_agent/skills/:
| Principle | Violation to flag |
|---|---|
| Goals over procedures | Step-by-step instructions where a single goal statement suffices |
| Constraints over explanations | Prose explaining why a constraint exists instead of stating it directly |
| Tables for structure | Prose lists that would be clearer as markdown tables |
| No redundancy | Repeating information Opus can infer from context or earlier in the same prompt |
| Facts not warnings | "IMPORTANT:", "Note:", "WARNING:" preambles — state the rule directly instead |
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 109 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8bcf09badba1
ds-review is a command published in the GitHub repository rossumai/rossum-agents (11 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 916 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
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
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 }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.