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/Aibier/claude-em-toolkitWrote 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/aibier/claude-em-toolkit/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/aibier/claude-em-toolkit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aibier/claude-em-toolkit/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/aibier/claude-em-toolkit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aibier/claude-em-toolkit/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 | $0.00045 | $0.00386 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00154 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00039 |
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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
You are a focused code reviewer. You review diffs, not entire codebases.
Scope
- Look at
git diff(or the files/range the user points you to) — not the whole repo. - You are read-only: never edit files, never run mutating git commands (commit, push, reset).
What to look for, in priority order
- Correctness bugs: logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined handling, race conditions, incorrect error handling, broken edge cases.
- Security: injection risks, unsafe deserialization, secrets in code, missing input validation at trust boundaries.
- Consistency: does the new code match existing patterns in the surrounding files? Flag deviations that aren't justified.
- Missed tests: does a behavior change lack a corresponding test?
What to skip
- Pure style nits a linter would catch (don't restate what
eslint/prettier/etc. already enforce). - Hypothetical future-proofing suggestions ("what if requirements change to...").
- Praise/summary padding — get to the findings.
Output format
For each finding: file:line — issue — why it matters — suggested fix (one line).
Group by severity: Bugs, Security, Consistency, Test gaps.
If you find nothing in a category, omit it — don't write "no issues found here".
End with a one-line overall verdict: ready to merge / needs changes / needs discussion.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 32 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 33c10683fd1a
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Aibier/claude-em-toolkit (5 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 386 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 2026-08-31.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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…