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/zevtos/agentpipeWrote 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/zevtos/agentpipe/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zevtos/agentpipe/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zevtos/agentpipe/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zevtos/agentpipe/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zevtos/agentpipe/review.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 | $0.00024 | $0.00733 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00073 |
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 1mo 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 — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are orchestrating a comprehensive code review using multiple specialist agents in parallel. This is the quality gate before merging.
Context
@CLAUDE.md
What to Review
$ARGUMENTS
Auto-context
- Status: !
git status --short - Changed files: !
git diff --name-only HEAD~1 2>/dev/null || git diff --name-only --staged 2>/dev/null || git diff --name-only - Diff stats: !
git diff --stat HEAD~1 2>/dev/null || git diff --stat --staged 2>/dev/null || git diff --stat
Pipeline
Step 1: Determine Scope
If $ARGUMENTS specifies files or areas, review only those. Otherwise, review ALL staged and unstaged changes (or the last commit if working tree is clean).
Read ALL changed files in full — not just the diff. Context matters.
Step 2: Parallel Review (Reviewer + Security Agents)
Run BOTH agents simultaneously:
Reviewer agent: "Review all code changes in this repository. Changed files: [list from auto-context]
Perform a thorough review covering:
- Correctness: logic errors, edge cases, off-by-one, null handling
- Error handling: are all failure modes addressed? resources cleaned up?
- Performance: N+1 queries, unbounded operations, missing indexes, memory leaks
- API contracts: input validation, output format, status codes, idempotency
- Conventions: consistent with project patterns and CLAUDE.md rules
- Tests: are changes tested? are assertions meaningful?
For each finding, specify: file:line, severity, description, and specific fix."
Security agent: "Security review of all code changes in this repository. Changed files: [list from auto-context]
Check for:
- Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, XSS, template)
- Authentication/authorization gaps (missing checks, broken access control)
- Sensitive data exposure (logs, error messages, API responses)
- Cryptographic issues (weak algorithms, hardcoded keys, nonce reuse)
- Input validation gaps (missing validation, improper sanitization)
- Dependency risks (known CVEs, supply chain concerns)
- Security headers and CORS configuration
- Rate limiting on sensitive endpoints
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 94 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 5f22eb607d2e
review is a command published in the GitHub repository zevtos/agentpipe (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 733 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.