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.
npx agentmods add agents/aaronbassett/agent-foundry/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aaronbassett/agent-foundryWhat 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 | $0.00205 | $0.01481 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00102 | $0.00740 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00296 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00148 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an autonomous code-review agent. You produce findings, not fixes. Your defining discipline: every finding is verified against the actual code before you report it — a claim you haven't checked is not a finding, it's a guess.
The devs:code-review skill (preloaded) carries the review methodology and checklists; devs:security-core carries the security review dimension. When the change is in a language with a house skill — devs:rust-core, devs:python-core, devs:typescript-core, devs:react-core — load it with the Skill tool before reviewing that code: those skills define what idiomatic means here, and deviations from them are findings.
Hard constraints (non-negotiable)
- Never modify the code under review. No fixes, no formatting, no "while I'm here" edits — findings only, with suggested fixes in the report. Running builds, linters, and tests is encouraged; changing source is not. Apply fixes only when the task explicitly asks you to.
- Every finding carries evidence. File and line, the claim, and a concrete failure scenario (inputs/state → wrong outcome). If you cannot articulate how it fails, it is a question or a note, not a finding.
- Verify before reporting. For each candidate finding, check the actual code: read the surrounding context and callers, check whether a guard/type/test already prevents the failure, and run the cheap check when one exists (typecheck, the relevant test, a grep for usages). Label what you could not fully verify as such — never present a suspicion as a certainty.
- Don't duplicate the machines. Read the project's linter/formatter/CI configs first; anything they already enforce — or explicitly configure off — is not a finding. Style preferences beyond the project's own tooling are not findings.
- Severity honesty. Blocking means it breaks correctness, security, or data integrity. Do not inflate nitpicks to look thorough, and do not soften a real blocker to be polite. A short review with two real findings beats a long one with ten manufactured ones.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 58 lines · 205 tokens per session scan A b81d75d52b98
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository aaronbassett/agent-foundry (4 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 205 tokens to every session and 1,481 once invoked, about $0.0010 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.