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/TheSmuks/ai-project-templateWrote 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/thesmuks/ai-project-template/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/thesmuks/ai-project-template/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/thesmuks/ai-project-template/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/thesmuks/ai-project-template/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/thesmuks/ai-project-template/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 | $0.00010 | $0.00159 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00079 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00032 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00016 |
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 10d 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
Review the currently staged git changes (git diff --cached). Focus on:
- Correctness: Logic errors, off-by-one, missing null/edge case handling
- Security: Hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, unsafe deserialization, path traversal
- Performance: N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations, missing batch processing
- Style: Naming conventions, dead code, inconsistent patterns
Output a concise summary with:
- List of issues found (or confirmation that changes look clean)
- Severity level for each issue (critical / warning / nit)
- Suggested fix for each issue
Do NOT suggest changes that are out of scope for the current diff.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 19 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 990587a26421
review is a command published in the GitHub repository TheSmuks/ai-project-template (7 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 159 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
staged
Use to review staged changes before committing, in a reviewer that has NOT seen this conversation — the right choice when this session wrote the code being staged. Do NOT use for branch-wide review (use /code-review:branch), full PR review (use /code-review:pr), or to also fix what it finds (use…
commit
Use when the user asks to commit changes (interactively, not inside an autonomous cycle). Runs code-simplifier + one reviewer (general code-reviewer OR the matching language reviewer, ECC agents/skills), then lint + targeted tests via evolve commit-gate run, writes a tree-SHA-bound attestation, commits + pushes via…
diff-review
Budget-capped adversarial review + simplification pass over a STAGED DIFF only — one agent, two lenses, findings-first. Use for commit-gate reviews instead of dispatching separate whole-repo reviewer and simplifier agents; the caller declares what already ran (tests, lint, gates) and the reviewer verifies claims…
review
Review staged changes before committing.
elegant-code-review
Review the current working diff against the elegant-code decision ladder and propose deletions, honoring the negligence floor.