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/team-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/team-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/team-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 | $0.00034 | $0.00896 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00448 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
team-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 3d 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 — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/team-review — Parallel Full-Team Audit
Run a full audit of your existing codebase with 4 specialist agents firing simultaneously. What would take an hour sequentially takes 15 minutes in parallel.
Usage
/team-review # full audit — all 4 agents on entire codebase
/team-review src/auth/ # focus all agents on a specific directory
/team-review --changed # audit only files changed since last commit
/team-review --pre-release # adds release-captain for release readiness check
What Gets Launched in Parallel
| Agent | Focus |
|---|---|
code-reviewer |
Quality, patterns, dead code, naming, complexity, maintainability |
security-reviewer |
OWASP Top 10, secrets, injection, auth gaps, CVEs in deps |
performance-optimizer |
N+1 queries, unbounded loops, missing indexes, memory leaks, bundle size |
api-guardian |
Breaking changes, missing validation, versioning gaps, contract drift |
With --pre-release, also adds:
release-captain— release readiness: changelog, semver, rollback plan, smoke test coverage
How It Works
- Identify the target scope (whole repo, directory, or changed files)
- Spawn all 4 agents simultaneously with
run_in_background: true - Each agent scans its assigned concern independently
- Wait for all to complete
- Aggregate into a structured Team Review Report:
## TEAM REVIEW REPORT
### Code Quality (code-reviewer)
CRITICAL: [list]
HIGH: [list]
MEDIUM: [list]
### Security (security-reviewer)
CRITICAL: [list]
HIGH: [list]
### Performance (performance-optimizer)
HIGH: [list]
MEDIUM: [list]
### API Contracts (api-guardian)
BREAKING: [list]
WARN: [list]
---
TOTAL: X critical, Y high, Z medium
RECOMMENDATION: [ship / fix critical first / block]
- After report: "Which finding do you want to fix first?"
Severity Levels
| Level | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Security vulnerability, data loss, production breakage | Block — fix before merge |
| HIGH | Bug, broken contract, significant perf regression | Fix before shipping |
| MEDIUM | Maintainability debt, minor perf, code smell | Fix when convenient |
| LOW | Style, suggestion | Optional |
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 108 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 2b4cf04c18dc
team-review is a command published in the GitHub repository sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc (11 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 896 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
maintainer-review-code-review
Review the PR for code quality, CLAUDE.md compliance, project conventions, and bugs (Pi-tuned).
maintainer-review-docs-impact
Review whether the PR's user-facing changes (APIs, CLI flags, env vars, behavior) are reflected in documentation (Pi-tuned).
maintainer-review-synthesize
Synthesize findings from all review aspects into a single maintainer-ready review report (Pi-tuned).
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).
maintainer-review-report
Produce the final summary of a maintainer-review-pr run for the workflow log.