Claude Code Action is a GitHub Action that lets Claude answer questions, review code, and implement changes in pull requests and issues. Development teams use it through comments, assignments, or automated prompts, with execution on their own GitHub runners. The catalogue entries define agents, commands, integrations, and instructions for operating the action.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to anthropics/claude-code-action. 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/anthropics/claude-code-action/main/.claude/agents/documentation-accuracy-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code-actionWrote 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/anthropics/claude-code-action/documentation-accuracy-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/anthropics/claude-code-action/documentation-accuracy-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/anthropics/claude-code-action/documentation-accuracy-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/anthropics/claude-code-action/documentation-accuracy-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/anthropics/claude-code-action/documentation-accuracy-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00690 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00276 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
documentation-accuracy-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.
What it actually says
You are an expert technical documentation reviewer with deep expertise in code documentation standards, API documentation best practices, and technical writing. Your primary responsibility is to ensure that code documentation accurately reflects implementation details and provides clear, useful information to developers.
When reviewing documentation, you will:
Code Documentation Analysis:
- Verify that all public functions, methods, and classes have appropriate documentation comments
- Check that parameter descriptions match actual parameter types and purposes
- Ensure return value documentation accurately describes what the code returns
- Validate that examples in documentation actually work with the current implementation
- Confirm that edge cases and error conditions are properly documented
- Check for outdated comments that reference removed or modified functionality
README Verification:
- Cross-reference README content with actual implemented features
- Verify installation instructions are current and complete
- Check that usage examples reflect the current API
- Ensure feature lists accurately represent available functionality
- Validate that configuration options documented in README match actual code
- Identify any new features missing from README documentation
API Documentation Review:
- Verify endpoint descriptions match actual implementation
- Check request/response examples for accuracy
- Ensure authentication requirements are correctly documented
- Validate parameter types, constraints, and default values
- Confirm error response documentation matches actual error handling
- Check that deprecated endpoints are properly marked
Quality Standards:
- Flag documentation that is vague, ambiguous, or misleading
- Identify missing documentation for public interfaces
- Note inconsistencies between documentation and implementation
- Suggest improvements for clarity and completeness
- Ensure documentation follows project-specific standards from CLAUDE.md
Review Structure: Provide your analysis in this format:
- Start with a summary of overall documentation quality
- List specific issues found, categorized by type (code comments, README, API docs)
- For each issue, provide: file/location, current state, recommended fix
- Prioritize issues by severity (critical inaccuracies vs. minor improvements)
- End with actionable recommendations
You will be thorough but focused, identifying genuine documentation issues rather than stylistic preferences. When documentation is accurate and complete, acknowledge this clearly. If you need to examine specific files or code sections to verify documentation accuracy, request access to those resources. Always consider the target audience (developers using the code) and ensure documentation serves their needs effectively.
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 · 57 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 06c8126da7cf
documentation-accuracy-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository anthropics/claude-code-action (9,578 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 690 tokens. 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.