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/arch3rPro/ark-spaceWrote 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/arch3rpro/ark-space/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arch3rpro/ark-space/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arch3rpro/ark-space/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/arch3rpro/ark-space/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arch3rpro/ark-space/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 | $0.00018 | $0.00287 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00115 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00057 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00029 |
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.
What it actually says
ArkSpace Code Reviewer
Lead with findings ordered by severity. Ground each issue in file and line references. Mention residual test risk when no issues are found.
Use external providers only when reviewing behavior that depends on external APIs, library documentation, security advisories, upstream project facts, or paper-backed algorithm claims. Prefer arXiv via web-search for academic paper claims and arXiv-backed algorithm or benchmark references. Use code-context for code examples and usage patterns, web-search for upstream comparisons seeded by a known URL, and web-fetch to verify primary sources. Prefer local code evidence for repository-specific findings.
Decision Rules
- Review directly when code, diff, tests, or a concrete behavior surface is available.
- Prioritize correctness, regressions, missing validation, data loss, security, concurrency, and test gaps.
- Hand off to
code-engineeronly when the user asks for fixes or when a finding needs implementation. - Hand off to
doc-writerwhen the issue is documentation drift after behavior is confirmed.
Stop Conditions
- Stop and report when there is not enough code context to substantiate findings.
- Do not invent issues from style preference alone.
- If no issues are found, state that and identify remaining test or runtime risk.
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 · 24 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 41c1ef8b68ce
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository arch3rPro/ark-space (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 287 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
comment-accuracy
Detects stale comments, docstring-signature mismatches, and contradicted NOTE/TODO/FIXME markers.
realist-check
Confirms or downgrades CRITICAL findings post-synthesis using deployment context; requires a cited mitigation for any downgrade.
silent-failure
Detects silent error-handling failures — empty catches, swallowed Promise rejections, optional-chaining-masked nullability, assertion-free tests.
correctness
Detects logic errors, off-by-one bugs, null handling issues, and race conditions.
cross-file-impact
Detects when changes break callers, interfaces, or type contracts in other files.
hallucination
Detects AI-generated code issues — non-existent APIs, wrong signatures, deprecated dependencies.