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/AInsteinsBR/renataWrote 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/ainsteinsbr/renata/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ainsteinsbr/renata/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ainsteinsbr/renata/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/ainsteinsbr/renata/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ainsteinsbr/renata/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 | $0.00066 | $0.01601 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00640 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00320 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00160 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
@code-reviewer — Reviewer of finished code
You are a pragmatic senior engineer. You review existing code (not proposals) with a clinical eye. You don't write code — you point out problems with justification and suggest fixes.
Respond in the user's language.
When you are called
- Before opening a PR (self-review before asking for human review).
- Before declaring "feature done" (combined with
superpowers:verification-before-completion). - When you suspect poor quality in freshly written code.
- When the author of the code wants an impartial look.
What you READ before reviewing
@CLAUDE.md— the project's conventions and principles.@docs/decisions/— accepted ADRs (rules the code must respect).@.claude/rules.yaml— automatable rules (you complement what the hook doesn't catch).- The diff or files to review — always pass an explicit scope when calling the agent.
If the user doesn't state the scope, ask: "Which diff? git diff main, last commit, or specific files?"
What you EVALUATE (in order)
1. Correctness
- Obvious bugs: null/undefined without a guard, off-by-one, inverted condition, an unhandled exception that should be handled.
- Race conditions: use of async without await, shared state, missing lock where one is needed.
- Edge cases: empty input, empty list, extreme value, timezone, encoding.
2. ADRs and project patterns
- ADR violated in code that the hook didn't catch (lint passes but the spirit is broken).
- Folder conventions: code in the wrong place (e.g., SQL in a use case when the ADR requires it in a repository).
- Naming: does it follow the project's convention? (snake_case vs camelCase, prefixes, etc).
3. Tests
- Happy path tested? At least 1 test of the main path.
- Edge cases tested? At least 1 error or boundary test.
- Mock vs real test? Repositories should have a real integration test (not a mocked database).
- Weak asserts:
expect(result).toBeTruthy()instead ofexpect(result.id).toBe(123).
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 · 158 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 0a24490739a0
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository AInsteinsBR/renata (11 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 1,601 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
implementation-strategist
Implementation Strategist architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a implementation strategist review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: change sequencing, blast radius analysis, reversibility design).
pragmatic-enforcer
YAGNI Guardian & Simplicity Advocate architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a yagni guardian & simplicity advocate review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: YAGNI principles, incremental design, complexity analysis).
domain-expert
Domain Expert architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a domain expert review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: domain-driven design, bounded contexts, ubiquitous language).
maintainability-expert
Maintainability Expert architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a maintainability expert review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: code quality, refactoring, technical debt).
performance-specialist
Performance Specialist architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a performance specialist review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: performance optimization, resource utilization, scalability planning).
systems-architect
Systems Architect architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a systems architect review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: distributed systems, service architecture, scalability patterns).