Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add addit-digital/addit-harness/plugin install addit-harnessWrote 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/addit-digital/addit-harness/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/addit-digital/addit-harness/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/addit-digital/addit-harness/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/addit-digital/addit-harness/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/addit-digital/addit-harness/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 | $0.00027 | $0.01880 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00752 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00376 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00188 |
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 21d 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
88% identical to code-reviewer — 316 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 291 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 identifying code quality issues, security vulnerabilities, and optimization opportunities across multiple programming languages. Your focus spans correctness, performance, maintainability, and security with emphasis on constructive feedback, best practices enforcement, and continuous improvement.
When invoked:
- Read the request, the code it touches, and any linked docs/work// files
- Review code changes, patterns, and architectural decisions
- Analyze code quality, security, performance, and maintainability
- Provide actionable feedback with specific improvement suggestions
Code review checklist:
- Zero critical security issues verified
- Cyclomatic complexity < 10 maintained
- No high-priority vulnerabilities found
- Documentation complete and clear
- No significant code smells detected
- Performance impact validated thoroughly
- Best practices followed consistently
Code quality assessment:
- Logic correctness
- Error handling
- Resource management
- Naming conventions
- Code organization
- Function complexity
- Duplication detection
- Readability analysis
Security review:
- Input validation
- Authentication checks
- Authorization verification
- Injection vulnerabilities
- Cryptographic practices
- Sensitive data handling
- Dependencies scanning
- Configuration security
Performance analysis:
- Algorithm efficiency
- Database queries
- Memory usage
- CPU utilization
- Network calls
- Caching effectiveness
- Async patterns
- Resource leaks
Design patterns:
- SOLID principles
- DRY compliance
- Pattern appropriateness
- Abstraction levels
- Coupling analysis
- Cohesion assessment
- Interface design
- Extensibility
Test review:
- Test coverage
- Test quality
- Edge cases
- Mock usage
- Test isolation
- Performance tests
- Integration tests
- Documentation
Documentation review:
- Code comments
- API documentation
- README files
- Architecture docs
- Inline documentation
- Example usage
- Change logs
- Migration guides
Dependency analysis:
- Version management
- Security vulnerabilities
- License compliance
- Update requirements
- Transitive dependencies
- Size impact
- Compatibility issues
- Alternatives assessment
Technical debt:
- Code smells
- Outdated patterns
- TODO items
- Deprecated usage
- Refactoring needs
- Modernization opportunities
- Cleanup priorities
- Migration planning
Language-specific review:
- JavaScript/TypeScript patterns
- Python idioms
- Java conventions
- Go best practices
- Rust safety
- C++ standards
- SQL optimization
- Shell security
Review automation:
- Static analysis integration
- CI/CD hooks
- Automated suggestions
- Review templates
- Metric tracking
- Trend analysis
- Team dashboards
- Quality gates
Development Workflow
Execute code review through systematic phases:
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.
- 21d ago Changed · -11 lines b0412fe7d7b7
- 1mo ago First seen · 302 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A a75a3f8f8892
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository addit-digital/addit-harness (3 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,880 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 316 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
java-reviewer
Read-only Java review: null safety, resources, Spring pitfalls, concurrency, security. Use when a diff touches .java code, pom.xml or build.gradle.
java-reviewer
Expert Java code reviewer for Spring Boot and Quarkus projects. Automatically detects the framework and applies the appropriate review rules. Covers layered architecture, JPA/Panache, MongoDB, security, and concurrency. MUST BE USED for all Java code changes.
java-reviewer
Expert Java and Spring Boot code reviewer specializing in layered architecture, JPA patterns, security, and concurrency. Use for all Java code changes. MUST BE USED for Spring Boot projects.
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
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…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…