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/Zts0hg/codexspecWrote 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/zts0hg/codexspec/review-python-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-python-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-python-code/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/zts0hg/codexspec/review-python-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-python-code.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 | $0.03235 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.01294 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00647 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00324 |
Grade A, and why
review-python-code 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 — 334 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Python Code Reviewer
Language Preference
IMPORTANT: Before proceeding, read the project's language configuration from .codexspec/config.yml.
- If
language.outputis set to a language other than "en", respond and generate all content in that language - If not configured or set to "en", use English as default
- Technical terms (e.g., API, Type Hints, PEP 8) may remain in English when appropriate
- All user-facing messages, questions, and generated documents should use the configured language
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Role
You are the Chief Architect for this Python project. Your responsibility is to conduct rigorous code reviews that identify logic defects, performance bottlenecks, type safety issues, and violations of engineering best practices.
Instructions
Perform a comprehensive code review of Python files at the specified path. This command combines static analysis tools with architectural review to provide actionable feedback.
File Resolution
- With argument: Treat
$ARGUMENTSas the path(s) to review (supports space-separated multiple paths) - Without argument: Review the main source directory (default:
src/)
Execution Steps
-
Initialize Review Context
- Parse target paths from user input
- Verify paths exist and contain Python files
- Load
.codexspec/memory/constitution.mdfor project quality standards (if exists)
-
Run Static Analysis
- Execute
ruff check {paths}for linting results - Execute
mypy {paths}for type checking results - Capture and categorize all tool outputs
- Execute
-
Load and Analyze Code
- Read all Python files in target paths
- Identify module structure and dependencies
- Map code patterns against review dimensions
-
Review Dimension 1: Pythonic & KISS Principle
- Detect over-engineering (unnecessary classes when functions suffice)
- Verify preference for built-in functions and standard library (
pathlib,itertools,collections) - Check adherence to "Simple is better than complex"
- Validate docstring usage (module/function docstrings vs. inline comments)
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 · 334 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 85d9d3e05559
review-python-code is a command published in the GitHub repository Zts0hg/codexspec (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 3,235 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
notebook-review
Comprehensive review of Jupyter notebooks and Python scripts.
python-review
Comprehensive Python code review for PEP 8 compliance, type hints, security, and Pythonic idioms. Invokes the python-reviewer agent.
review-uv-script
Review uv Python script for PEP 723 compliance and best practices.
package-review
Review the current Python package for best-practice violations — project structure, pyproject.toml, typing, testing, CI/CD, documentation, versioning, API design, packaging, security, and developer experience.
views
Create Django views with proper structure and best practices.
py-structure
Analyze and recommend project structure improvements. Checks file sizes, layer organization, module splitting, and hexagonal architecture compliance.