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/runnithan/claudex-setupWrote 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/runnithan/claudex-setup/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/runnithan/claudex-setup/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/runnithan/claudex-setup/review-pr/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/runnithan/claudex-setup/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/runnithan/claudex-setup/review-pr.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 | $0.00007 | $0.01182 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00473 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00236 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 25d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 179 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Comprehensive PR Review
Run a comprehensive pull request review using the specialized agents that ship with this plugin, each focusing on a different aspect of code quality.
Review Aspects (optional): "$ARGUMENTS"
Review Workflow:
-
Determine Review Scope
- Check git status to identify changed files
- Parse arguments to see if user requested specific review aspects
- Default: Run all applicable reviews
-
Available Review Aspects:
- code - General code review for project guidelines, bugs, and quality
- tests - Review test coverage quality and completeness
- simplify - Simplify code for clarity and maintainability
- all - Run all applicable reviews (default)
-
Identify Changed Files
- Run
git diff --name-onlyto see modified files - Check if PR already exists:
gh pr view - Identify file types and what reviews apply
- Run
-
Determine Applicable Reviews
Based on changes:
- Always applicable: code-reviewer (general quality, bugs, CLAUDE.md compliance)
- If test files changed: pr-test-analyzer
- After passing review: code-simplifier (polish and refine)
-
Launch Review Agents
Sequential approach (one at a time):
- Easier to understand and act on
- Each report is complete before next
- Good for interactive review
Parallel approach (user can request):
- Launch all agents simultaneously
- Faster for comprehensive review
- Results come back together
-
Aggregate Results
After agents complete, summarize:
- Critical Issues (must fix before merge)
- Important Issues (should fix)
- Suggestions (nice to have)
- Positive Observations (what's good)
-
Provide Action Plan
Organize findings:
# PR Review Summary ## Critical Issues (X found) - [agent-name]: Issue description [file:line] ## Important Issues (X found) - [agent-name]: Issue description [file:line] ## Suggestions (X found) - [agent-name]: Suggestion [file:line] ## Strengths - What's well-done in this PR ## Recommended Action 1. Fix critical issues first 2. Address important issues 3. Consider suggestions 4. Re-run review after fixes
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.
- 25d ago Changed · +11 lines 9078f45e5d79
- 1mo ago First seen · 168 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A e4bd3e35a9b3
review-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository runnithan/claudex-setup (1 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 1,182 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
pr
Analyze changes, detect scope issues, and create a well-structured PR.
ship
Branch, commit, open PR, gather Claude + every enabled AI reviewer (Copilot, CodeRabbit, etc.), fix/justify/resolve every finding, loop until clean, then merge. Run only when implementation is finished AND the owner has said to ship (e.g. "ship it") — never self-invoke just because the work looks done. To design and…
workweek-complete
Weekly release ceremony — validate, docs, release notes, merge.
workday-complete
End-of-day wrap — validate, consolidate, review, changelog.
review-code
Review a code diff/PR, or apply landed findings — findings land on the artifact.
pr-manager
Comprehensive pull request management with ruv-swarm coordination for automated reviews, testing, and merge workflows.