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/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkitWrote 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/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/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/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/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 | $0.00015 | $0.00460 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00184 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
Code Review
Practical code review focused on bugs, design issues, and maintainability.
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Usage
/review # Review entire project
/review src/auth.py # Review specific file
/review --spec design.md # Validate against requirements
/review --systematic # Structured reasoning for complex code
/review --semantic # Use Serena (70-90% token reduction)
Focus Areas
- Bugs: Logic errors, edge cases, error handling, null checks
- Design: Organization, coupling, SOLID violations, patterns
- Dead Code: Unused functions, imports, variables, commented code
- Quality: Readability, complexity, naming, documentation gaps
- Performance: Obvious inefficiencies, N+1 queries, memory leaks
NOT Included (By Design)
- Security scanning → use specialized tools
- Infrastructure audits → use
/audit
Output Format
# Code Review Results
## Summary
Brief overview of findings.
## Critical Issues (Fix Immediately)
- **Issue**: [description]
- **Location**: file:line
- **Impact**: [why it matters]
- **Fix**: [specific steps]
## Important Issues (Fix Soon)
[same format]
## Minor Issues (Fix When Convenient)
[same format]
## Positive Observations
- Well-implemented patterns
- Good practices found
## Action Plan
1. Immediate: [critical fixes]
2. This Sprint: [important improvements]
3. Backlog: [minor cleanups]
## Estimated Effort
- Critical: X hours
- Important: Y hours
- Minor: Z hours
Integration
After review: /fix review to apply recommended fixes
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 74 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 4afd7c39c906
review is a command published in the GitHub repository stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit (90 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 460 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
assemble-team
Assemble a pre-built agent team for parallel work - review, feature, debug, cross-platform, full-stack, or research.
review-code
Trigger a comprehensive code review on recent changes or specified files.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
refactor
Analyze code for SOLID violations and suggest targeted improvements.
pr
Analyze changes, detect scope issues, and create a well-structured PR.