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/tinhtran24/maestroWrote 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/tinhtran24/maestro/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/tinhtran24/maestro/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tinhtran24/maestro/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00335 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00168 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00067 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00034 |
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 6d 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
91% identical to review — 14 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.
What it actually says
to review
Manage Maestro code reviews of a worker's PR.
Syntax
maestro review <subcommand> [args] [flags]
Subcommands
maestro review submit
Record a reviewer's result for a worker's PR.
Syntax:
maestro review submit [worker-session-id] [flags]
Flags:
| Flag | Meaning | Default / Required |
|---|---|---|
--body string |
Review body: a path to a Markdown file, or - to read from stdin |
- |
--review-id string |
Id of the GitHub PR review just posted (the .id from the gh api POST that created the review) |
- |
--reviews string |
JSON review results array or object: a path, or - to read from stdin |
- |
--run string |
Review run id | Required |
--session string |
Worker session id (or pass it as the positional argument) | - |
--verdict string |
Review verdict: approved or changes_requested |
Required |
Examples
# Submit an approved review for session mer-3
maestro review submit mer-3 --run review-run-1 --verdict approved
# Submit a changes-requested review with a body from stdin
echo "Please fix the null check on line 42." | maestro review submit --session mer-3 --run review-run-1 --verdict changes_requested --body -
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 46 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A dd066f6c5b2d
review is a command published in the GitHub repository tinhtran24/maestro (3 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 335 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to review, differing in 14 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
address-pr-feedback
Systematically address PR review comments. Fetches all threads, categorizes by status (acknowledged, silently fixed, unaddressed), and guides user through posting replies and implementing fixes with explicit approval.
advanced-code-review-context
Advanced Code Review Phase 2: Context Analysis - load previous reviews, PR history, declined items.
create-pr
Create a pull request with proper template discovery and population.
request-review-plan
Request Code Review Phases 1-2: Planning scope and assembling reviewer context.
merge-worktree-resolve
Phase 3: Conflict Resolution - delegate to resolving-merge-conflicts with interface contract context.
auto
An automated coding workflow runs a software task from planning through code changes, checks, and a pull request. A pull request is a proposed change for review before it is merged into the main codebase.