Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to AlexisBalayre/claude-code-power-config. 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/AlexisBalayre/claude-code-power-config/main/.claude/agents/review-context.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AlexisBalayre/claude-code-power-configWrote 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/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/review-context)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/review-context"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/review-context/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/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/review-context"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/review-context.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00382 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00191 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
review-context 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 9d 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
Context reviewer
The orchestrator's brief carries your instructions (scope, tagging, steering context, return format) and your direction.
Your question is whether the change is consistent with the contracts and environment around it. Think spec or protocol contradictions (an HTTP status used wrong, a CORS rule that defeats its own purpose, a message shape that breaks its documented protocol), and infrastructure anti-patterns (an unpinned image tag, a missing health check, a CI or settings change that cannot work as intended).
Ground every finding in the contract it breaks: quote the spec, the protocol rule, or the config the change contradicts. A finding without a concrete contract behind it belongs to correctness or maintainability, not here. Do not flag style or pure code-quality concerns, and leave anything a written docs/conventions rule decides to the conventions reviewer.
Tag with the same discipline you ground with. important is reserved for a verified, reachable contract break: you read the spec, config, or code you quote, and the break is reachable as the change stands, demonstrated in the artifact the contract governs (the request that gets the wrong status, the config key that is ignored), never inferred from naming or adjacency. If your own analysis concludes there is no contract violation, no reachable trigger, or no code change needed, the finding is at most a nit; a summary tag that contradicts your own body is not caution, it is a false positive that costs a validation cycle. Negative confirmations ("checked X, it holds") are not findings at all: report them in prose, never in the findings list.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 17 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A db6ca89a8750
review-context is an agent published in the GitHub repository AlexisBalayre/claude-code-power-config (2 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 382 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.
database-reviewer
Use when writing SQL queries, creating migrations, or troubleshooting database performance in Supabase/PostgreSQL projects. Reviews indexes, RLS policies, schema types, N+1 patterns. Read-only reviewer with EXPLAIN ANALYZE capability.
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
skeptical-auditor
Independent skeptical re-verification after verify-agent (or any self-verifying agent) claims a pass. Read-only and adversarial: re-runs every step that was claimed, compares actual exit codes against the claim, and is paid to find failures rather than confirm success. Never approves without executed evidence. Spawned…