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.
npx agentmods add commands/versoxbt/claude-initial-setup/reviewgit 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.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 | $0.00006 | $0.00473 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00236 |
| Sonnet 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 4d 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.
- 4d 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 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 473 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 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
psql-query
Run ad-hoc PostgreSQL analytics queries against dev/test database.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
setup
Fetch Kobiton credentials from the authenticated MCP server and write them to /.kobiton/.credentials.
discuss
5-phase requirements-elicitation interview that produces an EARS-validated context/ .md.
Diagnose
Run a 20-point health check across the plugin install, project config, PM/notification reachability, docs freshness, board consistency, and git state. Read-only — never changes state. Reports each check as PASS/WARN/FAIL/SKIP with an actionable fix. Target under 15 seconds end-to-end. Use before demos, after a plugin…