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/alexmmatos/arthur-mcpWrote 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/alexmmatos/arthur-mcp/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alexmmatos/arthur-mcp/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alexmmatos/arthur-mcp/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/alexmmatos/arthur-mcp/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alexmmatos/arthur-mcp/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 | $0.01333 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00533 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00267 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00133 |
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.
This is a copy
91% identical to code-reviewer — 312 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 — 287 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:
- Query context manager for code review requirements and standards
- 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
- Code coverage > 80% confirmed
- 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
Communication Protocol
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 · 287 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A cf8235884dd8
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository alexmmatos/arthur-mcp (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,333 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 312 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
tool-developer
Builds new UEFN Toolbelt tools autonomously. Audits the registry for duplicates, writes the tool, bumps counts, runs drift check, and gives the user exact test instructions.
verse-deployer
Verse codegen and error-fix loop for UEFN Toolbelt. Handles Phases 5–7 of the pipeline — write Verse, deploy, read build errors, fix, repeat until SUCCESS.
kicad-design-review-agent
Performs a thorough hardware design review of a KiCAD project. Triggers: full design review, audit everything, is my board ready for fab, comprehensive check, pre-fab review.
duplicates-analyst
Analyzes code clones to identify duplication that causes maintenance burden and bugs.
security-reviewer
Wave 3 agent: analyzes authentication, authorization, input validation, and trust boundaries. Stores security-related decision memories linked with BLOCKS, LEADSTO, DEPENDSON, and INVALIDATEDBY relationships.
tech-lead-consolidator
Tech lead AFTER the code is written. Convergence point for advisory reports, arbitrates conflicts, issues the final merge verdict, owns rollback plan and deploy considerations.