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/sifxprime/kodelyth-eccWrote 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/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/kotlin-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/kotlin-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/kotlin-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 | $0.00027 | $0.00863 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00432 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
kotlin-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 4d 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to kotlin-review — 17 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Kotlin Code Review
This command invokes the kotlin-reviewer agent for comprehensive Kotlin-specific code review.
What This Command Does
- Identify Kotlin Changes: Find modified
.ktand.ktsfiles viagit diff - Run Build & Static Analysis: Execute
./gradlew build,detekt,ktlintCheck - Security Scan: Check for SQL injection, command injection, hardcoded secrets
- Null Safety Review: Analyze
!!usage, platform type handling, unsafe casts - Coroutine Review: Check structured concurrency, dispatcher usage, cancellation
- Generate Report: Categorize issues by severity
When to Use
Use /kotlin-review when:
- After writing or modifying Kotlin code
- Before committing Kotlin changes
- Reviewing pull requests with Kotlin code
- Onboarding to a new Kotlin codebase
- Learning idiomatic Kotlin patterns
Review Categories
CRITICAL (Must Fix)
- SQL/Command injection vulnerabilities
- Force-unwrap
!!without justification - Platform type null safety violations
- GlobalScope usage (structured concurrency violation)
- Hardcoded credentials
- Unsafe deserialization
HIGH (Should Fix)
- Mutable state where immutable suffices
- Blocking calls inside coroutine context
- Missing cancellation checks in long loops
- Non-exhaustive
whenon sealed types - Large functions (>50 lines)
- Deep nesting (>4 levels)
MEDIUM (Consider)
- Non-idiomatic Kotlin (Java-style patterns)
- Missing trailing commas
- Scope function misuse or nesting
- Missing sequence for large collection chains
- Redundant explicit types
Automated Checks Run
# Build check
./gradlew build
# Static analysis
./gradlew detekt
# Formatting check
./gradlew ktlintCheck
# Tests
./gradlew test
Example Usage
User: /kotlin-review
Agent:
# Kotlin Code Review Report
## Files Reviewed
- src/main/kotlin/com/example/service/UserService.kt (modified)
- src/main/kotlin/com/example/routes/UserRoutes.kt (modified)
## Static Analysis Results
✓ Build: Successful
✓ detekt: No issues
WARNING: ktlint: 2 formatting warnings
## Issues Found
[CRITICAL] Force-Unwrap Null Safety
File: src/main/kotlin/com/example/service/UserService.kt:28
Issue: Using !! on nullable repository result
```kotlin
val user = repository.findById(id)!! // NPE risk
```
Fix: Use safe call with error handling
```kotlin
val user = repository.findById(id)
?: throw UserNotFoundException("User $id not found")
```
[HIGH] GlobalScope Usage
File: src/main/kotlin/com/example/routes/UserRoutes.kt:45
Issue: Using GlobalScope breaks structured concurrency
```kotlin
GlobalScope.launch {
notificationService.sendWelcome(user)
}
```
Fix: Use the call's coroutine scope
```kotlin
launch {
notificationService.sendWelcome(user)
}
```
## Summary
- CRITICAL: 1
- HIGH: 1
- MEDIUM: 0
Recommendation: FAIL: Block merge until CRITICAL issue is 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 141 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 3b18cb5e03a5
kotlin-review is a command published in the GitHub repository sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc (11 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 863 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to kotlin-review, differing in 17 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
kotlin-review
Comprehensive Kotlin code review for idiomatic patterns, null safety, coroutine safety, and security. Invokes the kotlin-reviewer agent.
maintainer-review-comment-quality
Review the PR's added/modified comments and docstrings for accuracy, value, and long-term maintainability (Pi-tuned).
maintainer-review-error-handling
Review the PR for error-handling correctness — surfaced errors, no silent swallows, consistent error patterns (Pi-tuned).
review-seams
Hunt one defect: a type is missing at a seam, and something downstream pays for it — a parser that mis-reads, a hand-synced copy of a set, type, or table whose owner it could import or derive from, a second route that skips the validator, a value that silently loses fields across a re-entry. Read-only: never modify…
review-scope
Establish exactly what this review round examines, and write it down for the reviewer or reviewers that follow. You do not judge anything; you make the target precise.
python-review
Comprehensive Python code review for PEP 8 compliance, type hints, security, and Pythonic idioms. Invokes the python-reviewer agent.