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-react-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-react-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-react-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-react-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-react-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 | $0.00028 | $0.03646 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.01458 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00729 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00365 |
Grade A, and why
review-react-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 — 358 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
React 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., JSX, Hooks, Props, State) 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 Frontend Chief Architect for this React/TypeScript project. Your responsibility is to conduct rigorous code reviews that identify component architecture issues, hooks violations, state management problems, performance bottlenecks, and violations of React best practices.
Instructions
Perform a comprehensive code review of React/TypeScript 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 React/TypeScript files (
.tsx,.ts,.jsx,.js) - Load
.codexspec/memory/constitution.mdfor project quality standards (if exists)
-
Run Static Analysis
- Execute
npx eslint {paths}for linting results (if eslint config exists) - Execute
npx tsc --noEmitfor TypeScript type checking results (if tsconfig exists) - Capture and categorize all tool outputs
- Execute
-
Load and Analyze Code
- Read all React/TypeScript files in target paths
- Identify component structure and dependencies
- Map code patterns against review dimensions
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 · 358 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 208a82305780
review-react-code is a command published in the GitHub repository Zts0hg/codexspec (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 3,646 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.