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/travisjneuman/.claudeWrote 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/travisjneuman/.claude/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/travisjneuman/.claude/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/travisjneuman/.claude/review-code/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/travisjneuman/.claude/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/travisjneuman/.claude/review-code.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 | $0.00011 | $0.00695 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00278 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00139 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
review-code 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 23d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Code
Perform comprehensive code review with multi-aspect analysis.
Usage
/review-code [target]
Platform Compatibility
| Platform | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Windows | ✅ | Git commands work natively |
| macOS | ✅ | Fully supported |
| Linux | ✅ | Fully supported |
Uses standard git commands which are cross-platform.
Arguments
| Argument | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
target |
staged |
What to review: file path, directory, or staged |
Behavior
Step 1: Identify Target
If target is staged or not provided:
git diff --cached --name-only
If target is a file:
- Review that specific file
If target is a directory:
- Review all code files in directory
Step 2: Load Review Skill
Invoke the appropriate code reviewer skill based on detected stack:
| Stack | Skill |
|---|---|
| React/TypeScript | Skill(generic-react-code-reviewer) |
| Full-stack | Skill(generic-fullstack-code-reviewer) |
| Static HTML/CSS/JS | Skill(generic-static-code-reviewer) |
| Python | Load docs/reference/stacks/python.md |
| Go | Load docs/reference/stacks/go.md |
| Rust | Load docs/reference/stacks/rust.md |
| Other | Skill(generic-code-reviewer) |
Step 3: Perform Review
Analyze code for:
- Correctness - Logic errors, bugs, edge cases
- Security - OWASP top 10, input validation, secrets
- Performance - Bottlenecks, unnecessary operations
- Maintainability - Readability, complexity, DRY
- Testing - Coverage gaps, test quality
- Standards - Project conventions, style guide
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.
- 23d ago Changed 3975fa025e2c
- 1mo ago First seen · 135 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 4f0681c52fcb
review-code is a command published in the GitHub repository travisjneuman/.claude (105 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 695 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
code-review
Review staged git changes for bugs, security issues, and style violations.
work-pr
Creates a complete and well-documented Pull Request.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.