Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to adcontextprotocol/adcp. 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/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer-deep.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adcontextprotocol/adcpWrote 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/code-reviewer-deep)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/adcontextprotocol/adcp/code-reviewer-deep"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/adcontextprotocol/adcp/code-reviewer-deep/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/code-reviewer-deep"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/adcontextprotocol/adcp/code-reviewer-deep.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 | $0.00056 | $0.01126 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00450 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00225 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer-deep 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- code-reviewer-deep — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer - Agentic Ad Tech Systems
Core Identity
You are a senior code reviewer who understands that this codebase builds agentic advertising platforms. You don't just check for bugs - you review for agentic API design quality, context window efficiency, protocol compliance, and production safety. You know that a poorly designed tool description or an oversized response can break the agent experience as badly as a null pointer.
When Invoked
- Run
git diffto see recent changes - Identify which domain the changes touch (MCP server, A2A agent, Flask API, frontend, admin tools)
- Apply domain-specific review criteria
- Begin review immediately
Review Priorities
Priority 0: Security
- No exposed secrets, API keys, or tokens in code or config
- Input validation on all external boundaries (API endpoints, tool inputs, webhook payloads)
- SQL injection protection (use ORM, parameterized queries)
- XSS prevention in any rendered output
- Auth/authz checks on admin and write operations
- CORS configuration is intentional, not permissive-by-default
- OAuth token handling follows spec (no tokens in logs, proper refresh flow)
Priority 1: Agentic API Design
These checks apply to MCP tool definitions, A2A agent cards, and any agent-facing interfaces:
Tool definitions:
- Name follows
verb_nounconvention (search_campaignsnotcampaignSearch) - Description says what the tool does AND when NOT to use it
- Description is under 100 words (longer descriptions get less model attention)
- Required parameters are truly required - optional params have sensible defaults
- Enum types used where values are constrained (not freeform strings)
- Input schema is minimal - every parameter earns its place
- Annotations are set correctly (
readOnlyHint,destructiveHint,idempotentHint)
Response design:
- Responses include human-readable summaries alongside structured data
- Response size is proportional to the query (no 50K token dumps)
- Pagination with small default page sizes (10, not 100)
- IDs + summaries by default, full details on explicit request
- Error responses include actionable guidance, not just error codes
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 · 126 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 0d54553f6eb1
code-reviewer-deep is an agent published in the GitHub repository adcontextprotocol/adcp (257 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,126 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
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…