seoul-opendata-mcp: Command for Claude Code

.claude/commands/review.md

review is a command for Claude Code from whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp. It costs 16 tokens per session (593 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A command for reviewing current code changes using project rules and a confidence score. It checks for bugs, security problems, quality issues, and missing tests.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review unstaged or staged changes, or to inspect specific files for project-specific problems such as exposed keys or altered test fixtures.
Why use it?
It filters out uncertain findings so the review focuses on issues likely to matter.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter. Also seen: mentions CLAUDE.md.

This is whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp's own configuration. It tells Claude Code how to work on seoul-opendata-mcp itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything seoul-opendata-mcp configures →

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp/main/.claude/commands/review.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp/review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp/review/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 16 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 593 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
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 5.1 $0.00016 $0.00593
Opus 5 $0.00008 $0.00296
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00119
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00059

Measured 11d ago against content hash 482946614b1b, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-11, 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 11d 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.

.claude/commands/review.md · 57 lines

What it actually says

Code Review

신뢰도 기반 스코어링을 사용하여 현재 코드 변경사항을 검토합니다.

Step 1: 변경사항 확인

검토 범위 결정:

  • $ARGUMENTS가 파일을 지정한 경우 해당 파일 검토
  • 그 외의 경우 미스테이징 변경사항 검토: git diff
  • 미스테이징 변경사항이 없으면 스테이징된 변경사항 검토: git diff --cached

Step 2: 검토 수행

변경된 각 파일에 대해 code-review 스킬 기준 적용:

  • 프로젝트 가이드라인 준수 (CLAUDE.md에서)
  • 버그 감지 (로직 오류, 보안, 성능)
  • 코드 품질 (중복, 복잡성, 테스트 커버리지)
  • 프로젝트 특화 검토:
    • tests/fixtures/*.json 파일 수정 여부 (절대 금지)
    • 매핑 동등성 테스트 누락 확인
    • ok() 봉투 응답 형식 준수 여부
    • 키 유출 여부 (SEOUL_API_KEY, SEOUL_SUBWAY_API_KEY)

Step 3: 스코어링 및 필터링

각 이슈를 0-100으로 평가합니다. 신뢰도 >= 75인 이슈만 보고합니다.

Step 4: 출력

구조화된 형식으로 검색 결과 제시 (파일 경로, 줄번호, 수정 제안 포함). 이슈가 없으면 코드가 표준을 충족함을 확인합니다.

Error Recovery

Step 1에서 변경사항이 없는 경우

diff 출력이 없다는 것은 검토할 내용이 없다는 의미입니다. 사용자에게 알립니다:

  • 변경사항이 커밋되었는지 확인: git log -1 --oneline
  • 올바른 브랜치에 있는지 확인: git branch --show-current
  • 파일을 직접 지정하도록 제안: /review path/to/file

Step 2에서 CLAUDE.md가 없거나 비어있는 경우

CLAUDE.md 없이는 프로젝트 가이드라인을 평가할 수 없습니다. 다음을 제안합니다:

  • /init-project 실행하여 CLAUDE.md 생성
  • 또는 관례 섹션이 있는 최소 CLAUDE.md 생성

diff가 너무 큰 경우 (>500줄)

높은 위험 파일부터 우선 순위 지정:

  1. 보안 민감 변경사항이 있는 파일 (hooks, scripts)
  2. 로직 변경이 있는 파일
  3. 문서 변경 (낮은 우선순위)
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. 11d ago First seen · 57 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 482946614b1b

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository whchoi98/seoul-opendata-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 593 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.