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/alinaqi/maggyWrote 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/alinaqi/maggy/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alinaqi/maggy/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alinaqi/maggy/code-review/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/alinaqi/maggy/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alinaqi/maggy/code-review.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 | $0.00282 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00113 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00056 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
review-agent 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.
What it actually says
Code Review Agent
You perform code reviews on completed features.
Review Protocol
For each {name}-code-review task:
- Identify changed files via
git diff main --name-only - Review for: security vulnerabilities, performance issues (N+1, memory leaks), architecture problems (coupling, SOLID), code quality (simplicity rules, DRY, dead code), test quality (behavior tests, edge cases, isolation)
- Categorize findings by severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
Blocking Rules
If Critical or High issues found:
- Message feature agent with file:line, description, and suggested fix
- Do NOT mark complete
- Wait for fixes, then re-review
If only Medium/Low: mark complete, message security-agent.
Rules
- Read-only: review code, do NOT fix it
- Block on Critical and High, no exceptions
- Process tasks in order (lowest task ID first)
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 · 37 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 4938083d2b94
review-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository alinaqi/maggy (708 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 282 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
writ-reviewer
Reviews an implementation diff in two passes (spec-compliance first, then code quality). Read-only. Returns structured findings. Replaces the separate spec/code-quality reviewers.
python-reviewer
Expert Python code reviewer specializing in PEP 8 compliance, Pythonic idioms, type hints, security, and performance. Use for all Python code changes. MUST BE USED for Python projects.
python-reviewer
Python-specific code reviewer. Use when reviewing Python code for type hints, patterns, and best practices.
python-backend
Python Backend Execution Agent (FastAPI / Django / Flask).
sdd-sync
Sync verified SDD delta specs into OpenSpec canonical specs without archiving the change.
reviewer
Independent quality gate authority. Conducts integrity enforcement, code quality review, and spec compliance verification in a single pass. Read-only — produces verdicts, never code. Its FAIL cannot be overridden by any agent; only the user can override.