Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to seanrreid/RAD_framework. 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/seanrreid/RAD_framework/main/.claude/commands/team/rad-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/seanrreid/RAD_frameworkWrote 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/seanrreid/rad_framework/rad-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/seanrreid/rad_framework/rad-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/seanrreid/rad_framework/rad-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00054 | $0.02274 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.01137 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00455 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00227 |
Grade A, and why
rad-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 6d 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 — 256 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/rad-review
Self-review the rad/[feature] work branch before requesting architect review.
Catches problems early — better to find them now than in the architect's review
of the deliver PR.
Input
$ARGUMENTS (optional): specific files to review. If empty, reviews all
changes on the current rad/[feature] branch since it diverged from the default
branch.
BASE=$(scripts/get-default-branch.sh)
git diff "$BASE"...HEAD --name-only
Process
Step 1: Load context
- Read
CLAUDE.mdconventions and constraints - Read the plan file for this work branch:
BASE=$(scripts/get-default-branch.sh) FEATURE=$(git branch --show-current | sed 's#^rad/##') PLAN=".agents/plans/$FEATURE.md" - Read the execution log:
LOG=$(ls .agents/logs/$FEATURE-*.md 2>/dev/null | tail -1)
Step 2: Scope check
scripts/check-scope.sh "$PLAN" "rad/$FEATURE" "$BASE"
The script outputs each changed file as in-scope or out-of-scope. Include its full output in the review report. Any out-of-scope files are HIGH priority.
Step 2b: Lint advisories
scripts/lint-plan.sh "$PLAN"
Run the plan linter against the plan under review and include its full output in the review report. These are advisory only — they surface plan-quality warnings for the architect's attention but do not gate the review or block architect review. This is separate from the Step 2 scope check.
Step 3: Plan fidelity check
For each task in the plan, verify the implementation matches the description:
- Is the change in the right file at roughly the right location?
- Does it do what the task described — no more, no less?
- Were non-goals respected?
Step 3b: Acceptance Criteria coverage
Iterate over every item in the plan's ## Acceptance Criteria list. For each
AC#N, verify at least one Wave task's Validate: field cites it. Any AC with
no citing task is HIGH priority — the plan declared an outcome that no task
delivers. List every uncovered AC by number.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 256 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 9690ffae928f
rad-review is a command published in the GitHub repository seanrreid/RAD_framework (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 2,274 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
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.
review-sdk-app
Review and validate a Claude Agent SDK application against best practices.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
security-review
AI-powered security review of the current git diff (or specified paths). Dispatches the security-reviewer agent and prints findings grouped by severity.