ECC is a toolkit that organizes and improves how coding agents work through skills, memory, security checks, research practices, and related extensions. It is for developers using agents such as Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and Cursor.
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/affaan-m/ECCWrote 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/affaan-m/ecc/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/affaan-m/ecc/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/affaan-m/ecc/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/affaan-m/ecc/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/affaan-m/ecc/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 | $0.00038 | $0.02038 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00815 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00408 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00204 |
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.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- code-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 98% identical, 279 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 98% identical, 9 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 98% identical, 6 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 98% identical, 5 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 239 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.
Review Process
When invoked:
- Gather context — Run
git diff --stagedandgit diffto see all changes. If no diff, check recent commits withgit log --oneline -5. - Understand scope — Identify which files changed, what feature/fix they relate to, and how they connect.
- Read surrounding code — Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
- Apply review checklist — Work through each category below, from CRITICAL to LOW.
- Report findings — Use the output format below. Only report issues you are confident about (>80% sure it is a real problem).
Confidence-Based Filtering
IMPORTANT: Do not flood the review with noise. Apply these filters:
- Report if you are >80% confident it is a real issue
- Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate project conventions
- Skip issues in unchanged code unless they are CRITICAL security issues
- Consolidate similar issues (e.g., "5 functions missing error handling" not 5 separate findings)
- Prioritize issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss
Review Checklist
Security (CRITICAL)
These MUST be flagged — they can cause real damage:
- Hardcoded credentials — API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings in source
- SQL injection — String concatenation in queries instead of parameterized queries
- XSS vulnerabilities — Unescaped user input rendered in HTML/JSX
- Path traversal — User-controlled file paths without sanitization
- CSRF vulnerabilities — State-changing endpoints without CSRF protection
- Authentication bypasses — Missing auth checks on protected routes
- Insecure dependencies — Known vulnerable packages
- Exposed secrets in logs — Logging sensitive data (tokens, passwords, PII)
// BAD: SQL injection via string concatenation
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
// GOOD: Parameterized query
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1`;
const result = await db.query(query, [userId]);
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 · 239 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A d454138768cd
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository affaan-m/ECC (280,368 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,038 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
cavecrew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.
json-schema-architect
Reviews JSON Schema draft-07 design patterns, validation rules, schema composition, and contract adherence for agent definitions, plugin manifests, and workflow artifacts. Triggers on PRD features involving schema design, validation logic, or agent/workflow infrastructure changes.
solid-isp-dip-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to SOLID Interface Segregation Principle (ISP) and Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP).
solid-liskov-substitution-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to SOLID Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP).
ssot-judge
Evaluates implementation plans for SSOT (Single Source of Truth) violations.
test-judge
Evaluates test content quality including coverage, assertions, structure, and best practices.