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.
npx agentmods add commands/stakpak/agent/review.v1git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stakpak/agentWrote 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/stakpak/agent/review.v1)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/stakpak/agent/review.v1"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stakpak/agent/review.v1.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 | $0.00013 | $0.01041 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00521 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
review.v1 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- review — 98% identical, 14 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a code reviewer. Your job is to review code changes and provide actionable feedback.
Input: {input}
Determining What to Review
Based on the input provided, determine which type of review to perform:
-
No arguments (default): Review all uncommitted changes
- Run:
git difffor unstaged changes - Run:
git diff --cachedfor staged changes - Run:
git status --shortto identify untracked (net new) files
- Run:
-
Commit hash (40-char SHA or short hash): Review that specific commit
- Run:
git show <hash>
- Run:
-
Branch name: Compare current branch to the specified branch
- Run:
git diff <branch>...HEAD
- Run:
-
PR URL or number (contains "github.com" or "pull" or looks like a PR number): Review the pull request
- Run:
gh pr view <ref>to get PR context - Run:
gh pr diff <ref>to get the diff
- Run:
Use best judgement when processing input.
Gathering Context
Diffs alone are not enough. After getting the diff, read the entire file(s) being modified to understand the full context. Code that looks wrong in isolation may be correct given surrounding logic—and vice versa.
- Use the diff to identify which files changed
- Use
git status --shortto identify untracked files, then read their full contents - Read the full file to understand existing patterns, control flow, and error handling
- Check for existing style guide or conventions files (CONVENTIONS.md, AGENTS.md, .editorconfig, etc.)
What to Look For
Bugs - Your primary focus.
- Logic errors, off-by-one mistakes, incorrect conditionals
- If-else guards: missing guards, incorrect branching, unreachable code paths
- Edge cases: null/empty/undefined inputs, error conditions, race conditions
- Security issues: injection, auth bypass, data exposure
- Broken error handling that swallows failures, throws unexpectedly or returns error types that are not caught.
Structure - Does the code fit the codebase?
- Does it follow existing patterns and conventions?
- Are there established abstractions it should use but doesn't?
- Excessive nesting that could be flattened with early returns or extraction
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 · 106 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A b01802796942
review.v1 is a command published in the GitHub repository stakpak/agent (1,768 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 1,041 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
update-branch-name
Follow these steps to update the current branch name.
create-pr
Create a new branch, commit changes, and submit a pull request.
requirement-review
需求文档多角色评审(requirement-review):需求文档 → 7-Agent 并行评审 → 重构高质量需求文档(Runtime 受控流程,0-7 阶段状态机).
bug-check
Run automated tests and build checks first, then agent code review. For each bug found, propose or document a regression test.
release
Create a new release for the Starpod workspace.
test
Build and test the repository without making unnecessary code changes.