Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add ThrownLemon/claude-code-plugins/plugin install consultWrote 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/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/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/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/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 | $0.00041 | $0.00586 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00234 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00059 |
Grade C, and why
review scanned grade C with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Recursive force deletehighDestructive command
rm -rf with a variable or a broad path is one typo away from removing the wrong tree.
1. **Reject dangerous tokens.** If a value contains `$(`, backticks, `;`, `|`, `&`, `>`, `<`, or starts with `-` (could be mistaken for a flag), refuse and ask the user to rephrase. **Double-quoting does NOT block comman What it actually says
Input Safety — apply before any Bash invocation
Treat every $ARGUMENTS.* value as untrusted input. Before passing any value to the Bash tool:
- Reject dangerous tokens. If a value contains
$(, backticks,;,|,&,>,<, or starts with-(could be mistaken for a flag), refuse and ask the user to rephrase. Double-quoting does NOT block command substitution —"$(rm -rf /)"still executes inside double quotes. - Prefer the Bash tool's argv contract over constructed shell strings. When you must use a shell string, single-quote the value and escape embedded single quotes (
'\''), or build the command viaprintf %q. - Any
"$ARGUMENTS.foo"patterns shown below are illustrative. Sanitize the value first; never blindly substitute.
Consult — Review
Ask a different model family for a code review of the current branch. Useful as a third opinion alongside Claude and any other reviewer (codex, coderabbit, etc.).
The script gathers branch, base, status, and diff automatically — no need to paste anything.
Behavior
node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/consult.mjs review \
--provider ${ARGUMENTS.provider:-zai} \
${ARGUMENTS.base:+--base "$ARGUMENTS.base"} \
${ARGUMENTS.focus:+--focus "$ARGUMENTS.focus"}
Surface the response in full. The reviewer is instructed to end with a one-line verdict — SHIP IT, NEEDS WORK, or BLOCKER — relay that verdict at the top of your reply.
When this is most useful
- Right before opening a PR, as a sanity check
- After a large refactor, to catch regressions Claude may have missed
- Stacked with
/codex:rescueand/coderabbit:localfor a 3-way independent review
Run /consult:config if you get a "missing key" error.
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 · 50 lines · 41 tokens per session scan C 51db25bc7b0e
review is a command published in the GitHub repository ThrownLemon/claude-code-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 586 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (recursive force delete). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
speckit.spex.submit
Push and create PR for team review, with optional watch mode for CI monitoring.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
release-tag
Create and push a version tag after a release PR has been merged.
factory
Linha de montagem multi-agente (Software Factory) — spec-writer → builder em worktree isolado → 4 revisores paralelos (Security, Code, UI, UX) → approver com gate de risco e dashboard visual.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.