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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-appWrote 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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/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 | $0.00049 | $0.01503 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00751 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00301 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00150 |
Grade A, and why
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 12d 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 — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run the strict internal pre-PR review — the gate that runs BEFORE a PR is opened so CodeRabbit finds less. Generation and judging stay separate; the verdict is computed from parsed findings, never from reviewer prose.
1. Context
- Read
.claude/review-config.md(path rules + Hard exclusions / Signal-quality criteria / Precedents — do not re-raise the listed false positives). - Query prior lessons for the touched domains:
node .claude/hooks/lessons.mjs query --domain <d> --limit 4for each domain whoselessons_domainsglobs (.claude/review-routes.json) match the diff (≤3 domains). - Load the branch's finding ledger (
.claude/.review-ledger.jsonl, entries for this branch, last-status-wins per finding): findings alreadyopenare CONFIRMED — re-emit them in the report without re-verifying; skip spawning verifiers for them.
2. Scope + risk tier (mechanical — compute, don't vibe)
Scope = the diff of $ARGUMENTS (a base ref like main, or a PR#) — default git diff origin/main...HEAD. Stay inside the change's blast radius; pre-existing issues are out of scope unless the change endangers them.
Compute the tier:
lines= added+removed fromgit diff --numstat <scope>, excluding lockfiles/snapshots/generated/docs (the gate's skip-globs).security= any changed file matches thetauri-security-reviewersecondary globs in.claude/review-routes.json.
| Tier | Condition | Ensemble | Security gate | Verifiers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| trivial | ≤10 lines AND no security match | 1× pr-reviewer (sonnet) | no | no |
| standard | ≤100 lines AND no security match | 2× pr-reviewer (opus + sonnet) | no | single-source findings |
| full | security match OR >100 lines | 3× pr-reviewer (1 opus + 2 sonnet) | yes, FIRST | single-source findings |
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 53 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 9f32d8b0b402
review is a command published in the GitHub repository saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app (55 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 1,503 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
quiz-result
Analyze quiz progress over time and the weak areas to study next, from a KMS scores log.
devkit.react.code-review
Provides comprehensive React 19 + Tailwind CSS code review focusing on modern patterns, hooks, Server Components, Actions, performance, accessibility, and Tailwind best practices. Use when reviewing React code changes or before merging pull requests.
codebase-review
Review an entire codebase for architecture, engineering health, and exploitable risk; generate a prioritized remediation plan, an evidence-anchored system knowledge document, or both.
cargo-clippy
Command "cargo-clippy" from olorehq/olore, covering cargo-clippy(1), name, description and see also.
rust-critique
Deep code critique — read the target Rust code and apply the full review process. Evaluates soundness, ownership, error handling, type design, async correctness, performance, and architecture. Think like a senior Rust engineer giving honest feedback.
rust-review
Rust code review for ownership, safety, and idiomatic patterns.