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/zhukunpenglinyutong/ai-maxWrote 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/zhukunpenglinyutong/ai-max/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zhukunpenglinyutong/ai-max/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zhukunpenglinyutong/ai-max/code-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/zhukunpenglinyutong/ai-max/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zhukunpenglinyutong/ai-max/code-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 | $0.00013 | $0.00318 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00159 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00032 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 11d 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.
What it actually says
代码审查
对未提交更改进行全面的安全和质量审查：
-
获取已更改的文件：git diff --name-only HEAD
-
对于每个已更改的文件，检查以下内容：
安全问题（严重）：
- 硬编码的凭证、API 密钥、令牌
- SQL 注入漏洞
- XSS 漏洞
- 缺少输入验证
- 不安全的依赖项
- 路径遍历风险
代码质量（高）：
- 函数超过 50 行
- 文件超过 800 行
- 嵌套深度超过 4 层
- 缺少错误处理
- console.log 语句
- TODO/FIXME 注释
- 公共 API 缺少 JSDoc 文档
最佳实践（中）：
- 可变模式（应使用不可变模式代替）
- 代码/注释中使用表情符号
- 新代码缺少测试
- 可访问性问题（a11y）
-
生成报告，包含：
- 严重程度：严重、高、中、低
- 文件位置和行号
- 问题描述
- 建议的修复方案
-
如果发现严重或高级问题，阻止提交
永远不要批准存在安全漏洞的代码！
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 44 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A becde6261874
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository zhukunpenglinyutong/ai-max (335 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 318 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.