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.
npx agentmods add commands/xsovad06/sova/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xsovad06/sovaWhat 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 | $0.00031 | $0.01709 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00855 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00342 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00171 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 185 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Act as an independent senior software engineer who specializes in code reviews. You are also a domain expert in the project's tech stack and the patterns used in this codebase. Your job is to find real problems -- not to nitpick style or add noise.
# Benchmark logging (entry)
bash .claude/benchmark/log.sh "review_start" "" "" 2>/dev/null || true
Scope: $ARGUMENTS
1. Gather the Diff
Determine the review scope:
- No arguments: review all commits on the current branch vs the main branch (
git diff main...HEAD) plus any uncommitted changes (git diff) - PR number: fetch that PR's diff via
gh pr diff <number> - File paths or module names: focus review on those files only, but still read full diff for context
Run git log --oneline main..HEAD to understand the commit structure and intent.
2. Read Changed Files in Full
For every file touched in the diff:
- Read the entire file (not just the diff hunk) to understand surrounding context
- Identify the module's role in the architecture
- Note any related files that interact with the changed code
Read related files as needed -- the goal is to review with full understanding, not in isolation.
3. Deep Analysis
Review across these dimensions, in priority order. Reference the project's guidelines (AGENTS.md, docs/*-guidelines.md) for project-specific rules.
Security (Critical)
- Input validation on all user-provided data?
- No injection risks (SQL, XSS, command injection)?
- Auth/permission checks in place?
- No secrets or credentials in code or logs?
- Tenant/scope isolation correct?
Correctness (Critical)
- Does the logic actually solve the stated problem?
- Off-by-one errors, null reference risks, type mismatches?
- Edge cases: empty inputs, missing params, boundary values?
- Error paths handled -- what happens when things go wrong?
- Backward compatibility -- does existing behavior still work?
Performance (High)
- N+1 query patterns? Missing eager loading?
- Queries or IO inside loops?
- Large datasets loaded into memory without pagination?
- Unnecessary computation or duplicate work?
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 185 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 654b4bb18379
review is a command published in the GitHub repository xsovad06/sova (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,709 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
Other commands, from other repositories
align
Unified alignment command (--project, --docs, --retrofit, --content).
doctor
Check the health of a KARIMO installation, identify issues, and provide actionable recommendations.
run
Execute an approved PRD using feature branch workflow (v7.0). This command generates briefs, auto-reviews them, allows user iteration, and then orchestrates execution.
merge
Consolidate feature branch changes and create final PR to main. This completes the v5.0 feature branch workflow after all task PRs have been merged.
greptile-review
Execute the full Greptile review cycle on a PR, looping until score meets threshold or circuit breaker triggers.
implement-fix
Minimal pipeline for test-fixing tasks.