cortexloop-standard

A fixed CodeCortexLoop review command for checking code. It runs review, security, tests, and error-handling checks in a defined sequence.

In plain words
What is it for?
Reviewing recent changes or a whole project for correctness, security issues, test problems, and missing error handling. It can produce a review report for later processing.
Why use it?
It gives a code review a repeatable scope and order. It also records the selected review settings and the checks that were skipped.

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/whitequeen306/code-cortex-loop/cortexloop-standard
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/whitequeen306/code-cortex-loop
Per session 23 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 229 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 $0.00023 $0.00229
Opus 5 $0.00012 $0.00114
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00046
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00023

Measured yesterday against content hash 208a6f6b1d05, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

cortexloop-standard 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.

commands/cortexloop-standard.md · 24 lines

What it actually says

CodeCortexLoop Standard

Run /cortexloop with preset standard locked in:

preset: standard
passes: [review, security, tests, errorHandling]
cost: medium

Skip preset selection. Still ask Report vs Direct and Recent changes vs Whole project unless --ci or config already determines them.

Budget Preflight still runs and records risk, recommendation, selected preset, enabled passes, skipped passes, and cost in the run summary. If the preflight recommendation differs from Standard, record that Standard was user-selected by explicit command.

Enabled passes run in fixed sequential order (Task subagent per pass) — see passes/README.md. Standard runs steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 only.

Follow all steps in commands/cortexloop.md and rules/cortexloop-workflow.mdc. Run post-processing scripts after report.json is written.

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. yesterday First seen · 24 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 208a6f6b1d05

Subscribe to this mod's changes

cortexloop-standard is a command published in the GitHub repository whitequeen306/code-cortex-loop (15 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 229 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.