review

A command that reviews changed files for bugs, security problems, performance issues, and maintainability concerns. It reports each finding with its file location, reason, and a suggested fix, without editing files.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review the current branch against main, or to inspect a specific path, including input validation, authentication, race conditions, slow queries, and missing tests.
Why use it?
It gives developers a consistent review of the current branch's changes before they are merged. This can expose defects or missing safeguards that are easy to overlook.

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/wesammustafa/opencode-primer/review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wesammustafa/opencode-primer
Per session 14 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 233 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found 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 $0.00014 $0.00233
Opus 5 $0.00007 $0.00117
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00047
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00023

Measured 2d ago against content hash 87b6f527e8c8, 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 2d 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.

.opencode/commands/review.md · 32 lines

What it actually says

Run a code review with these inputs:

  • Scope: $ARGUMENTS if provided, otherwise the current branch's diff vs main.
  • Changed files (always check):

!git diff --name-only main...HEAD

For each changed file, evaluate (in this order):

  1. Correctness — bugs, race conditions, broken control flow.
  2. Security — input validation, auth, secrets, OWASP Top 10.
  3. Performance — N+1 queries, blocking I/O, unbounded loops.
  4. Maintainability — naming, duplication, missing tests.

Output one entry per finding using this format:

[Severity] <summary>
  Where: <file:line>
  Why:   <one sentence>
  Fix:   <concrete snippet or instruction>

End with a one-line verdict: LGTM, Approve with comments, or Changes requested.

Do not edit any files in this command — leave the implementation to the developer.

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. 2d ago First seen · 32 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 87b6f527e8c8

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository wesammustafa/opencode-primer (384 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 233 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 2026-08-30.