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/solanabr/solana-ai-kitWrote 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/solanabr/solana-ai-kit/diff-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/solanabr/solana-ai-kit/diff-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/solanabr/solana-ai-kit/diff-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/solanabr/solana-ai-kit/diff-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/solanabr/solana-ai-kit/diff-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 | $0.00016 | $0.00766 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00306 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
diff-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 25d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- diff-review — 100% identical, 261 lines differ
- diff-review — 100% identical, 261 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 35 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review this branch's changes against the base branch ($ARGUMENTS, default main, else master) and report findings by severity, each with file:line and a concrete fix. Vulnerability classes: security.md; scanning workflow: solana-vulnerability-scanner.
Steps
- Diff:
git diff <base>...HEAD, plusgit diff HEADfor uncommitted work, and--statfor scope. Read the whole file when a hunk lacks context (account structs, handlers). - Solana checks on the changed code:
- New or changed accounts carry owner, signer and PDA constraints; each
UncheckedAccounthas a/// CHECK:the code enforces. - Math on amounts is checked, with no narrowing
as; nounwrap()/expect()in program code. - PDAs reuse the stored bump (
bump = acct.bump); handlers do not callfind_program_address. - CPIs validate the target program and
.reload()accounts they mutate. - Token code uses
transfer_checkedwithtoken_interfaceand handles Token-2022 transfer hooks and fees where the mint may be Token-2022. - Pre-1.0 Anchor habits:
@coral-xyz/anchorimports (now@anchor-lang/core),CpiContext::newgiven anAccountInfo, plaintransfer, hardcoded8 +inspace. - Clients keep amounts as
bigint/BN, mix web3.js 1.x and@solana/kittypes only through an interop layer (kit-web3-interop.md), and regenerate the IDL client when the program interface changed (/generate-idl-client). - No hardcoded addresses or RPC URLs outside constants or config; no API keys in client code.
- CU waste:
msg!with formatting on hot paths; needless.clone()orVeccopies of account data. - Changed instructions have tests, including their failure paths.
- New or changed accounts carry owner, signer and PDA constraints; each
- AI slop: comments that restate the code; over-commented files; try/catch that only rethrows or swallows; defensive checks duplicating Anchor constraints; verbose errors leaking internals; dead helpers or copies of existing utilities; stubs and TODOs presented as finished; docs describing behavior the code does not have.
- Capture learnings: when a Critical or Warning finding repeats a mistake already seen in this repo, or the user confirms a convention, append one line under
## Project LearningsinCLAUDE.md. Skip one-off 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.
- 25d ago Changed · -213 lines · +4 tokens per session a5fa70680be7
- 26d ago Changed 12e85a06577a
- 1mo ago First seen · 248 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 52af70f93344
diff-review is a command published in the GitHub repository solanabr/solana-ai-kit (104 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 766 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
fix-pr-comments
Systematically resolve Pull Request review comments using gh CLI to fetch comments and apply requested changes.
review-pr
Review PR for skills/commands/MCP - validates docs, quality, formatting.
capture-patterns
Scan the existing codebase and auto-generate PATTERNS.md with detected conventions. Run once, review the output, then commit it so all agents enforce your team's patterns.
audit
Command "audit" from mantacron/manta, covering review depth, step 0 — load suppressions, step 1 — gather context, shared project map — built once, passed to every agent and step 2 — run agents in parallel.
gh-pr-fix
Verify and fix unresolved PR review comments from humans, Copilot, or CodeRabbit.
comment-cleanup
Walk through changed code comments and pick a writing variation for each.