Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to xsovad06/sova. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xsovad06/sova/main/.claude/commands/review-full.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xsovad06/sovaWrote 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/xsovad06/sova/review-full)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/xsovad06/sova/review-full"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xsovad06/sova/review-full/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/xsovad06/sova/review-full"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xsovad06/sova/review-full.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00027 | $0.00949 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00380 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
review-full 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 14d 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 — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Full Review Pipeline
Run a complete pre-push quality pipeline: simplify code, review for issues, then organize commits into clean history.
Scope: $ARGUMENTS
Phase 1: Simplify
Follow the /simplify workflow. Review all changed code for opportunities to reduce complexity:
-
Get the diff scope:
BASE=$(git symbolic-ref --short refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's#^origin/##') BASE=${BASE:-main} git fetch --quiet origin "$BASE" git diff "origin/$BASE"...HEAD --stat git diff --cached --stat git diff --stat -
For each changed file, read the entire file and check:
- Code reuse: does new code duplicate existing utilities or helpers? Search the codebase.
- Over-engineering: unnecessary abstractions, premature generalization, excessive configurability
- Dead code: unused imports, unreachable branches, commented-out code
- Redundancy: repeated logic that could be a shared helper (only if 3+ occurrences)
- Complexity: can any function be simplified without losing clarity?
- Efficiency: redundant computations, repeated file reads, duplicate API calls
-
Apply simplifications directly. After each change, verify tests still pass (see CLAUDE.md for commands).
-
If no simplifications are needed, state that and move on.
Phase 2: Review
Follow the /review command workflow:
- Review all changed files for bugs, security, performance, test coverage, consistency, doc freshness, and scout rule (fix pre-existing issues in touched files).
- Score each finding (1-10 priority). Address all findings (fix or acknowledge with justification).
- Run the full CI-equivalent checks:
make check. Fix any failures before proceeding. - Report findings in the standard review format.
See /review for the full review checklist and scoring criteria.
Phase 3: Organize Commits
Follow the /rearrange-commits command workflow:
- Snapshot uncommitted work as a WIP commit and create a backup branch, then soft reset to the fork point (
git merge-base HEAD "origin/$BASE"), exactly as/rearrange-commitsStep 2 does. Never reset toorigin/$BASEitself: re-committing this branch's tree on top of a base that moved silently reverts everything the base gained. Never usegit stash: the stash stack is shared by every worktree and session. - Create small, logical, atomic commits in dependency order.
- Verify: all changes committed, each commit atomic, total diff matches the backup branch.
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.
- 14d ago Changed · +3 lines 774012559657
- 16d ago Changed · +1 tokens per session f8af05551628
- 1mo ago Changed 55cefed4f1cb
- 1mo ago Changed · -10 lines 1c6ab76739fc
- 2mo ago First seen · 106 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A ab647de8de51
review-full is a command published in the GitHub repository xsovad06/sova (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 949 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
hatch3r-pr-resolve
Read open PR comments, evaluate each against current code via the rigor contract, implement accepted findings, reply inline. Multi-platform.
afrv
Revise the current feature worktree after code review — decide accept/revert/modify (shortcut for feature-code-revise).
implement-revalidate
Read by /implement when the user asks to re-validate (D-CMD-REF-HAND).
align
Context-aware alignment. In plan mode it audits the active plan and folds the amendments in. Otherwise it reviews the branch, a named branch, or a pull request against Ion's principles, authors a fix plan, and after approval implements and commits the fixes.
request-review-plan
Request Code Review Phases 1-2: Planning scope and assembling reviewer context.
aitask-web-merge
Merge completed Claude Web branches to main and archive task data.