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/wallneradam/cc-plugin-counterpoint/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wallneradam/cc-plugin-counterpointWrote 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/wallneradam/cc-plugin-counterpoint/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/wallneradam/cc-plugin-counterpoint/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wallneradam/cc-plugin-counterpoint/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 | $0.00018 | $0.00531 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00053 |
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 3d 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.
What it actually says
Run a Codex code review via the mcp__counterpoint__review MCP tool, following the review protocol in the counterpoint skill.
Argument handling:
- If $ARGUMENTS contains
--scope <value>or--base <ref>, pass them as thescope/basetool parameters. - Each
--path <file-or-dir>goes into thepathsarray parameter — path-based review of the listed files/directories as they exist on disk, independent of git state (use this for already-committed code or whole modules). If the user names files or directories to review without flags, treat those aspathstoo. - Any remaining text in $ARGUMENTS is the
focusparameter (optional review focus areas).
Protocol (see the counterpoint skill's "Review mode" section for the full rules):
- Call
mcp__counterpoint__reviewwith the parsed parameters. - Parse the JSON findings from the response. Summarize them in chat — one line per finding (
id severity file:line — title), plus the verdict. Mark findings whoseoriginispre-existing(a real bug in the surrounding code that predates this change) — Codex reports these as full findings, and they are real bugs, not dismissable because they were already there. The user cannot see the raw MCP result. - Verify each finding against the actual code before accepting it (Read/Grep the cited locations). Classify: real / false positive / uncertain — and say so in chat. A
pre-existingfinding is verified the same way; being pre-existing is not grounds to treat it as a false positive. - This command is review-only: do NOT fix anything unless the user asks. If there are false positives or you have pushback, send a follow-up round via the
replyparameter so Codex re-evaluates and updates finding statuses. - If the user wants findings fixed automatically, point them to
/counterpoint:review_loop.
Do NOT delegate to codex-rescue or any other Codex agent — the persistent thread is what makes multi-round review work.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 22 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 086bf95cbb25
review is a command published in the GitHub repository wallneradam/cc-plugin-counterpoint (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 531 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
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.