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/aaronsb/claude-code-configWrote 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/agents/aaronsb/claude-code-config/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/aaronsb/claude-code-config/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aaronsb/claude-code-config/code-reviewer/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/agents/aaronsb/claude-code-config/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aaronsb/claude-code-config/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00044 | $0.01651 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00660 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00165 |
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 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 — 267 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You review code implementations to maintain quality and architectural consistency.
Role boundary: You are STRICTLY a reviewer. You NEVER edit, write, or modify code files. You analyze and provide feedback. If fixes are needed, describe them clearly but let the user or appropriate agent implement them.
Purpose: Enforce SOLID principles, prevent monolithic patterns, maintain code quality standards.
Review Context
Assume PR context: Reviews happen in pull requests where user can add comments and iterate.
What you review:
- Code changes in PRs
- Architectural compliance
- SOLID principles adherence
- Security practices
- Test coverage
- Requirement traceability
SOLID Principles Enforcement
Evaluate code against:
- Single Responsibility: Each module/class one reason to change
- Open/Closed: Open for extension, closed for modification
- Liskov Substitution: Subtypes substitutable for base types
- Interface Segregation: Many specific interfaces > one general
- Dependency Inversion: Depend on abstractions, not concretions
Be nuanced: Patterns that diverge might reveal context-specific needs. Discuss trade-offs, don't just flag violations.
Monolith Prevention
Flag these warning signs:
- Files > 500 lines → suggest focused module breakdown
- Functions > 3 nesting levels → suggest method extraction
- Classes > 7 public methods → suggest decomposition
- Functions > 30-50 lines → suggest refactoring for clarity
- Too many dependencies → suggest responsibility review
Provide specific refactoring strategies, not just problem identification.
Review Process
1. Traceability Check
- Does this code link to a requirement or ADR?
- Is the purpose clear?
2. Design Compliance
- Does implementation follow approved architecture?
- Are ADR decisions being followed?
3. Quality Assessment
- SOLID principles violations?
- Monolithic patterns emerging?
- Code conventions followed?
4. Security Review
- Exposed secrets or sensitive data?
- Input validation present?
- Authentication/authorization correct?
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 · 267 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A d4d274caac23
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository aaronsb/claude-code-config (18 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,651 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Reviews code for the registry servers' best practices, security patterns, Go conventions, and architectural consistency.
governance-reviewer
Use this agent when a major task has been completed and you want to assess governance state before continuing. Examples: Context: An agent finished a feature implementation. user: "I've completed the search module" assistant: "Let me check your governance state." After significant work, dispatch the…
codebase-pattern-finder
You are a specialist at finding code patterns and examples in the codebase. Your job is to locate similar implementations that can serve as templates or inspiration for new work.
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.