review

A command that runs an OpenCode code review against the repository's local Git state.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review working-tree changes, staged changes, untracked files, or differences from a base branch, with optional foreground or background execution.
Why use it?
It gives you a review of current changes while keeping the operation review-only, without applying fixes or patches.

Command

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/victalejo/opencode-plugin-cc/review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/victalejo/opencode-plugin-cc
Per session 10 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 744 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin 91% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00010 $0.00744
Opus 5 $0.00005 $0.00372
Sonnet 5 $0.00002 $0.00149
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00074

Measured yesterday against content hash 889beb23da02, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 yesterday.

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.

Origin

This is a copy

91% identical to review — 18 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.

plugins/opencode/commands/review.md · 62 lines

What it actually says

Run an opencode review through the shared opencode runtime.

Raw slash-command arguments: $ARGUMENTS

Core constraint:

  • This command is review-only.
  • Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
  • Your only job is to run the review and return opencode's output verbatim to the user.

Execution mode rules:

  • If the raw arguments include --wait, do not ask. Run the review in the foreground.
  • If the raw arguments include --background, do not ask. Run the review in a Claude background task.
  • Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking:
    • For working-tree review, start with git status --short --untracked-files=all.
    • For working-tree review, also inspect both git diff --shortstat --cached and git diff --shortstat.
    • For base-branch review, use git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD.
    • Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work even when git diff --shortstat is empty.
    • Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant working-tree status is empty or the explicit branch diff is empty.
    • Recommend waiting only when the review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change.
    • In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background.
    • When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
  • Then use AskUserQuestion exactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with (Recommended):
    • Wait for results
    • Run in background

Argument handling:

  • Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
  • Do not strip --wait or --background yourself.
  • Do not add extra review instructions or rewrite the user's intent.
  • The companion script parses --wait and --background, but Claude Code's Bash(..., run_in_background: true) is what actually detaches the run.
  • /opencode:review is native-review only. It does not support staged-only review, unstaged-only review, or extra focus text.
  • If the user needs custom review instructions or more adversarial framing, they should use /opencode:adversarial-review.

Foreground flow:

  • Run:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/opencode-companion.mjs" review "$ARGUMENTS"
  • Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is.
  • Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it.
  • Do not fix any issues mentioned in the review output.

Background flow:

  • Launch the review with Bash in the background:
Bash({
  command: `node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/opencode-companion.mjs" review "$ARGUMENTS"`,
  description: "opencode review",
  run_in_background: true
})
  • Do not call BashOutput or wait for completion in this turn.
  • After launching the command, tell the user: "opencode review started in the background. Check /opencode:status for progress."
Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 62 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 889beb23da02

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository victalejo/opencode-plugin-cc (3 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 744 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to review, differing in 18 lines, and is treated as a copy.