Agentic Plugin Marketplace is a collection of reusable plugins, agents, skills, commands, and rules for coding-agent tools including Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor, OpenCode, Antigravity CLI, and GitHub Copilot. It is for developers assembling agentic workflows across multiple harnesses from shared Markdown sources, and the catalogue entries are examples or subsets of those workflow components.
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/wshobson/agentsWrote 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/wshobson/agents/full-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/wshobson/agents/full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wshobson/agents/full-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 5.1 | $0.00024 | $0.04641 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.02320 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00928 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00464 |
Grade A, and why
full-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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- full-review — 86% identical, 324 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 598 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Comprehensive Code Review Orchestrator
CRITICAL BEHAVIORAL RULES
You MUST follow these rules exactly. Violating any of them is a failure.
- Execute phases in order. Do NOT skip ahead, reorder, or merge phases.
- Write output files. Each phase MUST produce its output file in
.full-review/before the next phase begins. Read from prior phase files -- do NOT rely on context window memory. - Stop at checkpoints. When you reach a
PHASE CHECKPOINT, you MUST stop and wait for explicit user approval before continuing. Use the AskUserQuestion tool with clear options. - Halt on failure. If any step fails (agent error, missing files, access issues), STOP immediately. Present the error and ask the user how to proceed. Do NOT silently continue.
- Use only local agents. All
subagent_typereferences use agents bundled with this plugin orgeneral-purpose. No cross-plugin dependencies. - Never enter plan mode autonomously. Do NOT use EnterPlanMode. This command IS the plan -- execute it.
Pre-flight Checks
Before starting, perform these checks:
1. Check for existing session
Check if .full-review/state.json exists:
-
If it exists and
statusis"in_progress": Read it, display the current phase, and ask the user:Found an in-progress review session: Target: [target from state] Current phase: [phase from state] 1. Resume from where we left off 2. Start fresh (archives existing session) -
If it exists and
statusis"complete": Ask whether to archive and start fresh.
2. Initialize state
Create .full-review/ directory and state.json:
{
"target": "$ARGUMENTS",
"status": "in_progress",
"flags": {
"security_focus": false,
"performance_critical": false,
"strict_mode": false,
"framework": null
},
"current_step": 1,
"current_phase": 1,
"completed_steps": [],
"files_created": [],
"started_at": "ISO_TIMESTAMP",
"last_updated": "ISO_TIMESTAMP"
}
Parse $ARGUMENTS for --security-focus, --performance-critical, --strict-mode, and --framework flags. Update the flags object accordingly.
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 · 598 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A b51ee69ec266
full-review is a command published in the GitHub repository wshobson/agents (39,449 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 4,641 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
codex-loop
Use Codex as a second, differently-trained reviewer of your branch, fix every real finding with regression tests, and loop until two consecutive reviews come back clean. Runs autonomously.
validate-parallel
Run assert and review-code commands in parallel to reduce validation time by 50%.
octo-deliver
"Delivery phase - Review, validate, and test with multi-AI quality assurance".
code-review
Code review a pull request.
bug-check
Run automated tests and build checks first, then agent code review. For each bug found, propose or document a regression test.
review-code
Perform comprehensive code quality review including standards, security, maintainability, and best practices validation.