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/saajunaid/caddis-pluginWrote 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/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/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/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saajunaid/caddis-plugin/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 | $0.00013 | $0.00552 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00221 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00055 |
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 1mo 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Perform a comprehensive review of the specified code changes (or uncommitted changes). Check for security issues, code quality, and adherence to best practices.
Instructions
Step 1: Identify Changes
Determine the scope of review:
- If reviewing uncommitted work: check
git difffor changed files - If reviewing specific files: use the files provided by the user
- If reviewing a PR: examine all changed files in the pull request
Step 2: Review Each File
Check every changed file against these categories:
Security (CRITICAL)
- Hardcoded credentials, API keys, or tokens
- SQL injection vulnerabilities (unsanitized input in queries)
- XSS vulnerabilities (unescaped user input in output)
- Missing input validation on user-facing endpoints
- Path traversal risks in file operations
- Insecure dependency usage
Code Quality (HIGH)
- Functions exceeding ~50 lines (candidates for extraction)
- Files exceeding ~800 lines (candidates for splitting)
- Nesting depth greater than 4 levels
- Missing error handling or bare exception catches
- Leftover
console.log/print/debuggerstatements - Unresolved
TODOorFIXMEcomments
Best Practices (MEDIUM)
- Mutation where immutable patterns are preferred
- Missing tests for new or changed functionality
- Missing documentation for public APIs
- Accessibility issues in UI code (missing labels, alt text, ARIA)
- Inconsistent naming or style relative to the rest of the codebase
Step 3: Produce the Report
For each issue found, report:
### <Issue Title>
**Severity**: CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
**File**: <path>:<line>
**Issue**: <description of the problem>
**Fix**: <suggested fix or code change>
Step 4: Summary
End with an overall assessment:
## Review Summary
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| CRITICAL | 0 |
| HIGH | 0 |
| MEDIUM | 0 |
| LOW | 0 |
**Verdict**: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / BLOCK
Blocking issues: <list any CRITICAL or HIGH issues that must be fixed>
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 82 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A f915fad9e956
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository saajunaid/caddis-plugin (0 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 552 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-09.
Other commands, from other repositories
proof-capture
Capture PR-ready proof artifacts for a feature, with an attested fail-closed controller in strict mode.
test-feature
Test a React Native feature on the running simulator/emulator. Verifies UI, user flows, and internal state. Generates a persistent Maestro test file.
specify
Command dispatcher for specify.
run-workflow
Validate and establish the proven rn-dev-agent operating sequence before a real React Native journey — declared package manager and dependencies, read-only inventory, typed session recovery, one exclusive device, managed integration and Metro, only the requested proof, reverse-order cleanup.
observe
Show the observability web UI URL (it autostarts with the session); stop or restart it.
accept
Command dispatcher for accept.