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 | $0.00009 | $0.00333 |
| Sonnet 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 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.
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.
- 10d 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 (82 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. 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
Review the file at $ARGUMENTS for code quality issues.
workflow-automate
You are a workflow automation expert specializing in creating efficient CI/CD pipelines, GitHub Actions workflows, and automated development processes. Design and implement automation that reduces manual work, improves consistency, and accelerates delivery while maintaining quality and security.
refactor-clean
You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.
team-review
Launch a multi-reviewer parallel code review with specialized review dimensions.
pr-quality-gate-code-quality
You are reviewing a pull request for the maintainability of the code it changes: how cohesive, loosely coupled, encapsulated, testable, and non-redundant the touched code is, and whether the author left each file at least as clean as they found it.
pr-quality-gate-decision-rigor
You are reviewing a pull request for the quality of the reasoning behind a decision, not just the code that implements it.