review-python-code

A command for reviewing Python code for style, type annotations, reliability, performance, and project rules. PEP 8 is the commonly used guide for formatting and writing readable Python.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review one or more Python files, with or without specifying paths. It looks for logic defects, performance problems, type-safety issues, and engineering-practice violations.
Why use it?
It brings several kinds of code review into one check and turns potential problems into actionable feedback. It can also follow the project's language and constitution settings.

Command for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-python-code
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Zts0hg/codexspec

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 27 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 3,235 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00027 $0.03235
Opus 5 $0.00014 $0.01618
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00647
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00324

Measured 2d ago against content hash 85d9d3e05559, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 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.

.claude/commands/codexspec/review-python-code.md · 334 lines

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.output is 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 $ARGUMENTS as the path(s) to review (supports space-separated multiple paths)
  • Without argument: Review the main source directory (default: src/)

Execution Steps

  1. Initialize Review Context

    • Parse target paths from user input
    • Verify paths exist and contain Python files
    • Load .codexspec/memory/constitution.md for project quality standards (if exists)
  2. Run Static Analysis

    • Execute ruff check {paths} for linting results
    • Execute mypy {paths} for type checking results
    • Capture and categorize all tool outputs
  3. Load and Analyze Code

    • Read all Python files in target paths
    • Identify module structure and dependencies
    • Map code patterns against review dimensions
  4. 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)

Read the full file on GitHub · 334 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 334 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 85d9d3e05559

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-python-code is a command published in the GitHub repository Zts0hg/codexspec (5 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 3,235 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 2026-08-31.