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/VersoXBT/claude-initial-setupWrote 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/versoxbt/claude-initial-setup/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/versoxbt/claude-initial-setup/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/versoxbt/claude-initial-setup/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/versoxbt/claude-initial-setup/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/versoxbt/claude-initial-setup/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 | $0.00006 | $0.00473 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00189 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00095 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00047 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Perform a thorough code review on recent changes, checking for quality, security, and performance issues.
Steps
-
Run
git diffto identify all changed files. If on a feature branch, usegit diff main...HEADto see all changes since branching.git diff --stat git diff main...HEAD -
For each changed file:
- Read the full file to understand context, not just the diff.
- Check naming conventions and code readability.
- Verify functions are small (under 50 lines) and files are focused (under 800 lines).
- Ensure no mutation of objects or arrays — immutable patterns must be used.
-
Check for security issues:
- No hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords, tokens).
- All user inputs validated and sanitized.
- No SQL injection, XSS, or CSRF vulnerabilities.
- Error messages do not leak sensitive data.
-
Check for performance issues:
- No unnecessary re-renders or redundant computations.
- No N+1 query patterns in database access.
- Proper use of memoization and caching where appropriate.
-
Check for correctness:
- Edge cases handled (null, undefined, empty arrays, boundary values).
- Error handling is comprehensive with try/catch where needed.
- No console.log statements left in production code.
- No hardcoded values that should be constants or config.
-
Verify test coverage:
- New code has corresponding tests.
- Tests cover happy path and error cases.
- No tests were removed or skipped without justification.
-
Compile findings into a report grouped by severity:
- CRITICAL: Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, crashes.
- HIGH: Logic errors, missing error handling, broken functionality.
- MEDIUM: Code quality issues, missing tests, style violations.
- LOW: Naming suggestions, minor refactoring opportunities.
If Issues Are Found
- Fix CRITICAL issues immediately before any commit.
- Fix HIGH issues before merging.
- Log MEDIUM and LOW issues for follow-up.
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 · 61 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A c6ab3e9fad55
review is a command published in the GitHub repository VersoXBT/claude-initial-setup (4 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 473 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
unity-review
Full Unity-aware code review — checks serialization safety, performance, architecture, and Unity-specific pitfalls.
team-review
Launch a multi-reviewer parallel code review with specialized review dimensions.
story-continue
Resume an interrupted story from where you left off.
refactor
A guided code-refactoring command that changes a chosen module, file, or subsystem while aiming to keep its behavior unchanged.
review-branch
Review an existing branch holistically before merging — blast radius, conventions, security, and spec compliance.
review-pr-staging
Staging review mode — comprehensive review of staging branch before deploy to main.