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/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpersWrote 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/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/pr/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/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/pr.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 | $0.00014 | $0.03026 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.01210 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00605 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00303 |
Grade A, and why
pr 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to pr — 7 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 207 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Name
code-review:pr
Synopsis
/code-review:pr <pr-url-or-number> [--language <lang>] [--profile <name>] [--skip-build] [--skip-tests]
Description
The code-review:pr command performs a comprehensive code quality review of the changes in a GitHub Pull Request. It analyzes unit test coverage, idiomatic code patterns, DRY compliance, SOLID principles, and build verification.
The command supports two layers of customization:
-
Language skills (
--language <lang>): Load language-specific guidance for idiomatic code review, test conventions, and build commands. Currently shipped:go. Planned:python,rust,typescript,java. If not specified, the language is auto-detected from changed file extensions. -
Profile skills (
--profile <name>): Load project-specific guidance that layers on top of language checks. Profiles add project conventions, shared utilities, build targets, and additional review criteria. Profiles reference the project's own agents and skills rather than embedding them.
The two layers compose: --language go --profile hypershift applies both Go idioms and HyperShift project conventions.
Implementation
Step 0 — Parse Arguments & Load Skills
- Parse
$ARGUMENTSfor the following:- PR identifier (required, first positional argument): Either a full GitHub PR URL (e.g.,
https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123) or a PR number (e.g.,123). When only a number is provided, the current repository's remote is used. --language <lang>: Language skill to load (e.g.,go,python,rust,typescript,java)--profile <name>: Project profile skill to load (e.g.,hypershift)--skip-build: Skip build verification step--skip-tests: Skip unit test coverage review step
- PR identifier (required, first positional argument): Either a full GitHub PR URL (e.g.,
- If no PR identifier is provided, ask the user for one.
- If
--languageis not specified, auto-detect the primary language from the file extensions of changed files (determined in Step 1):.go->go.py->python.rs->rust.ts,.tsx->typescript.java->java- If mixed or unrecognized, proceed without a language skill
- Check for the language skill file at
skills/lang-<lang>/SKILL.mdrelative to the plugin root directory. If the skill exists, read it and store its content for use by sub-agents. If it does not exist, inform the user and proceed with a generic review. - If
--profileis specified, check for the profile skill file atskills/profile-<name>/SKILL.mdrelative to the plugin root directory. If the skill exists, read it and store its content for use by sub-agents. If it does not exist, warn the user and proceed without profile-specific checks.
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 · 207 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A a69d1adef0d4
pr is a command published in the GitHub repository wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 3,026 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to pr, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
code-simplify
Simplify code incrementally while preserving behavior exactly.
implement
Have Gemini (via agy) implement a task by editing files directly.
adversarial-review
Get a devil's advocate review that challenges your design decisions.
adr-review
Run the workflow in docs/playbooks/adr-review.md. You review only — never write or rewrite the ADR for me. Check problem framing, option fairness, trade-offs and consequences, reversibility, the revisit trigger, and weak reasoning. Give pointed questions and concrete suggestions; I write the words. If it supersedes an…
review-pr
Comprehensive PR review using specialized agents.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.