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/victalejo/opencode-plugin-cc/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/victalejo/opencode-plugin-ccWhat 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 | $0.00010 | $0.00744 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00372 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00149 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00074 |
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.
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.
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 --cachedandgit diff --shortstat. - For base-branch review, use
git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD. - Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work even when
git diff --shortstatis 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.
- For working-tree review, start with
- Then use
AskUserQuestionexactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with(Recommended):Wait for resultsRun in background
Argument handling:
- Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
- Do not strip
--waitor--backgroundyourself. - Do not add extra review instructions or rewrite the user's intent.
- The companion script parses
--waitand--background, but Claude Code'sBash(..., run_in_background: true)is what actually detaches the run. /opencode:reviewis 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 "$ARGUMENTS"
- Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is.
- Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it.
- Do not fix any issues mentioned in the review output.
Background flow:
- Launch the review with
Bashin the background:
Bash({
command: `node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/opencode-companion.mjs" review "$ARGUMENTS"`,
description: "opencode review",
run_in_background: true
})
- Do not call
BashOutputor wait for completion in this turn. - After launching the command, tell the user: "opencode review started in the background. Check
/opencode:statusfor progress."
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.
- yesterday First seen · 62 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 889beb23da02
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.
Other commands, from other repositories
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.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
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.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.