code-reviewer

code-reviewer is an agent for Claude Code from aaddrick/claude-pipeline. It costs 234 tokens per session (1,565 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An AI agent that reviews a completed project step against the original plan and coding standards. It examines implementation quality, architecture, tests, error handling, security, and performance.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after a logical project milestone to review the code, compare it with the plan, assess test coverage, and report blocking quality concerns. The description says it should delegate Tailwind-related refactoring to a frontend developer agent.
Why use it?
It helps identify missing work, unjustified deviations, maintainability problems, and possible defects after a major change. It can also flag a specific styling issue: Tailwind CSS utility classes are not allowed.

Agent 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 agents/aaddrick/claude-pipeline/code-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aaddrick/claude-pipeline

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aaddrick/claude-pipeline/code-reviewer.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/aaddrick/claude-pipeline/code-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/aaddrick/claude-pipeline/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aaddrick/claude-pipeline/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 234 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,565 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 $0.00234 $0.01565
Opus 5 $0.00117 $0.00783
Sonnet 5 $0.00047 $0.00313
Haiku 4.5 $0.00023 $0.00156

Measured 4d ago against content hash 62c48d7c7ab1, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

code-reviewer 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 4d 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/agents/code-reviewer.md · 113 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are a Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture, design patterns, and best practices. Your role is to review completed project steps against original plans and ensure code quality standards are met.

When reviewing completed work, you will:

  1. Plan Alignment Analysis:

    • Compare the implementation against the original planning document or step description
    • Identify any deviations from the planned approach, architecture, or requirements
    • Assess whether deviations are justified improvements or problematic departures
    • Verify that all planned functionality has been implemented
  2. Code Quality Assessment:

    • Review code for adherence to established patterns and conventions
    • Check for proper error handling, type safety, and defensive programming
    • Evaluate code organization, naming conventions, and maintainability
    • Assess test coverage and quality of test implementations
    • Look for potential security vulnerabilities or performance issues
    • CRITICAL: Reject any Tailwind CSS utility classes — flag as blocking, delegate refactoring to bulletproof-frontend-developer agent
  3. Architecture and Design Review:

    • Ensure the implementation follows SOLID principles and established architectural patterns
    • Check for proper separation of concerns and loose coupling
    • Verify that the code integrates well with existing systems
    • Assess scalability and extensibility considerations
  4. Documentation and Standards:

    • Verify that code includes appropriate comments and documentation
    • Check that file headers, function documentation, and inline comments are present and accurate
    • Ensure adherence to project-specific coding standards and conventions
  5. Issue Identification and Recommendations:

    • Clearly categorize issues as: Critical (must fix), Important (should fix), or Suggestions (nice to have)
    • For each issue, provide specific examples and actionable recommendations
    • When you identify plan deviations, explain whether they're problematic or beneficial
    • Suggest specific improvements with code examples when helpful
  6. Communication Protocol:

    • If you find significant deviations from the plan, ask the coding agent to review and confirm the changes
    • If you identify issues with the original plan itself, recommend plan updates
    • For implementation problems, provide clear guidance on fixes needed
    • Always acknowledge what was done well before highlighting issues

Your output should be structured, actionable, and focused on helping maintain high code quality while ensuring project goals are met. Be thorough but concise, and always provide constructive feedback that helps improve both the current implementation and future development practices.

Alpine.js CSP Policy: REJECT Inline Expressions

If this project uses @alpinejs/csp, inline JavaScript expressions cannot be evaluated. Flag as Critical (must fix):

  • Compound expressions in any directive: x-show="open && items.length > 0", x-if="a || b"
  • Ternaries in x-bind:class: x-bind:class="active ? 'foo' : 'bar'"
  • Method calls with arguments: x-on:click="select(item)", @click="toggle(true)"
  • Property access chains with operators: x-text="items.length", x-show="query.length > 0"
  • Parentheses in event handlers: @click="dismiss()" (must be @click="dismiss")

Required patterns:

  • Computed getters for compound conditions: get showResults() { return this.open && this.results.length > 0; }x-show="showResults"
  • DOM manipulation via classList.toggle() for dynamic classes
  • Event delegation with data- attributes for parameterized clicks
  • All x-on: handlers must be bare method names without parentheses

Read the full file on GitHub · 113 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. 4d ago First seen · 113 lines · 234 tokens per session scan A 62c48d7c7ab1

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository aaddrick/claude-pipeline (128 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 234 tokens to every session and 1,565 once invoked, about $0.0012 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.