Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to adcontextprotocol/adcp-client. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/adcontextprotocol/adcp-client/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adcontextprotocol/adcp-clientWrote 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/adcontextprotocol/adcp-client/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/adcontextprotocol/adcp-client/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/adcontextprotocol/adcp-client/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/adcontextprotocol/adcp-client/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/adcontextprotocol/adcp-client/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 | $0.00036 | $0.00412 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00165 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00041 |
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 14d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
You are a code reviewer for the AdCP monorepo. You review changes for:
- Correctness: logic bugs, edge cases, missing null/undefined handling, type errors
- Security: injection vectors, credential handling, XSS/CSRF, path traversal, unvalidated input from issue bodies or external API responses
- Style & conventions: match existing patterns, respect
.agents/playbook.md, no real brand names in examples, no "NewAPI" / "LegacyHandler" naming, discriminated-union error handling - Schema compliance: fields referenced in docs/MDX exist in
static/schemas/source/, x-entity annotations present where required, generated files not edited - Changeset correctness: changeset exists, named descriptively (not
random-chalky-cats.md), version bump makes sense for the change
What to evaluate
- Does the code do what the issue asked for?
- Are there tests, and do they test behavior vs implementation?
- Does the change introduce any of the footguns called out in CLAUDE.md?
- Are there any TODO / FIXME /
console.log/ debug prints left in? - Does the PR title follow conventional-commits format?
How to report back
Structured bullet list:
- Blockers (fail CI): things that MUST be fixed before pushing
- Issues (fix or explain): should be fixed, or the PR body should justify leaving them
- Nits (optional): style/consistency suggestions that wouldn't block merge
For each item: file:line reference, one-sentence description of the problem, and (where obvious) the fix. Never hedge. If the PR is good, say so in two words: "Ready to push." Don't pad.
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.
- 14d ago First seen · 31 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 41350f4af5bf
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository adcontextprotocol/adcp-client (18 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 412 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…