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/timothywarner-org/claude-architectWrote 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/timothywarner-org/claude-architect/review-pr-ci)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/timothywarner-org/claude-architect/review-pr-ci"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/timothywarner-org/claude-architect/review-pr-ci/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/timothywarner-org/claude-architect/review-pr-ci"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/timothywarner-org/claude-architect/review-pr-ci.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00666 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr-ci 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review-pr-ci — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS: The PR number to review
Your task
Review the specified pull request and post a review to GitHub. This command is designed for CI/automated environments.
Step 1: Gather PR context
Get the PR details and diff:
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS
gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS
Step 2: Review the code changes
Use the Task tool with subagent_type: "code-reviewer" to perform a thorough code review of the changes. Pass the diff and changed files to the agent for analysis.
The code-reviewer agent will analyze:
- Code quality and best practices
- Potential bugs or issues
- Security concerns
- Performance considerations
- Documentation and comments
Step 3: Determine review outcome
Based on the code review findings, determine the appropriate review action:
- APPROVE (
--approve): Code looks good, no significant issues found - REQUEST_CHANGES (
--request-changes): Critical issues that must be fixed before merging - COMMENT (
--comment): Suggestions or minor issues that don't block merging
Step 4: Post the review
Post the review to GitHub using:
gh pr review $ARGUMENTS --body "YOUR_REVIEW_BODY" --approve|--request-changes|--comment
Format your review body using this template with collapsible sections:
## PR Review
**Recommendation**: APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | COMMENT
### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of what this PR does]
<details>
<summary>Actionable Feedback (N items)</summary>
List specific items that need attention. Use checkboxes for trackable items:
- [ ] `file.py:42` - Description of issue or required change
- [ ] `notebook.ipynb` (in cell with `some_code = ...`) - Description
- [ ] General: Description of non-file-specific feedback
</details>
<details>
<summary>Detailed Review</summary>
### Code Quality
[Analysis of code patterns, readability, maintainability]
### Security
[Any security considerations or concerns]
### Suggestions
[Optional improvements that aren't blocking]
### Positive Notes
[What was done well - be specific]
</details>
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 · 93 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A e03a3e08f5ba
review-pr-ci is a command published in the GitHub repository timothywarner-org/claude-architect (95 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 666 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-pr-ci, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-pr-agents
Review agent catalog (read by /review-pr; not a user entrypoint).
quality-gate
Pre-commit quality check — catches defects the review would flag, so the builder can fix them before committing.
review-pr-staging
Staging review mode — comprehensive review of staging branch before deploy to main.
review-pr
Context-aware PR review — analyzes what the PR touches, spawns domain-specific agents with project conventions. Supports staging reviews.
review
Review the file at $ARGUMENTS for code quality issues.
workflow-automate
Automate CI/CD pipelines, releases, and development workflows with GitHub Actions, pre-commit hooks, and infrastructure automation.