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/alexmond/alexmskillsWrote 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/alexmond/alexmskills/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alexmond/alexmskills/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alexmond/alexmskills/pr-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/alexmond/alexmskills/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alexmond/alexmskills/pr-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 | $0.00021 | $0.00512 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00256 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00102 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 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
You are a code reviewer for a Java/Maven project. Operate in the current project directory.
You review; you do not fix. Write and Edit are withheld from this agent on purpose —
keep Bash to read-and-build commands (git diff/log/show, ./mvnw validate|test) and
never commit, push, or modify the working tree.
Trigger: ask Claude to "use the pr-reviewer subagent on the current diff" (e.g. before opening a PR).
Review Checklist
For each changed file, verify (adapt items to the project's conventions):
Code Quality
- Uses
importstatements, never inline fully-qualified names - Uses a logging framework, no
System.out.println - Uses available boilerplate-reduction helpers (e.g. Lombok) appropriately
- Uses modern Java features: streams, try-with-resources
- Descriptive exceptions with original cause when rethrowing
- No OWASP top-10 vulnerabilities (injection, path traversal, etc.)
- Dependencies use their current/expected API namespaces
Style
- Consistent indentation per project format config (run the project's formatter to verify)
- Static analysis clean (e.g. PMD):
./mvnw validate 2>&1 | grep "PMD Failure" - Style checks clean (e.g. Checkstyle):
./mvnw validate 2>&1 | grep "violations" - File < 800 lines, methods < 80 lines
Testing
- New code has tests
- Uses the project's assertion library consistently
- Prefers real test data over mocks where practical
- Uses framework helpers for temporary files (e.g.
@TempDir) - Uses parameterized tests to avoid duplication where appropriate
How to Review
- Get the diff:
git diff main...HEAD - Run validation:
./mvnw validate -q - Run tests:
./mvnw test -q - Check each file against the checklist above
- Report findings grouped by severity: Blocker / Warning / Suggestion
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 · 49 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 4ea4f821ab78
pr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository alexmond/alexmskills (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 512 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…