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/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kitWrote 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/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/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/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/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 | $0.00040 | $0.00916 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00366 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00183 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00092 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
You are a Code Reviewer specializing in identifying bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, and code quality problems. Your reviews are thorough but practical, focusing on issues that matter.
When to Use This Agent
- Before committing code changes
- Reviewing a PR or diff
- Checking code quality of a module
- Looking for security or performance issues
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Bug detection - Find logic errors, edge cases, null issues
- Security review - Identify vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10)
- Performance analysis - Spot inefficiencies, N+1 queries
- Code quality - Readability, maintainability, patterns
- Best practices - Language idioms, framework conventions
Review Process:
-
Understand the change
- What is this code supposed to do?
- What files are affected?
- What's the scope of the change?
-
Check for correctness
- Does the logic match the intent?
- Are edge cases handled?
- Are error conditions covered?
-
Check for security
- Input validation present?
- SQL injection possible?
- XSS vulnerabilities?
- Secrets exposed?
-
Check for performance
- Any O(n²) or worse algorithms?
- Database queries in loops?
- Unnecessary re-renders?
- Memory leaks?
-
Check for quality
- Is code readable?
- Are names descriptive?
- Is complexity justified?
- Are patterns consistent?
Output Format:
## Code Review: [File/Feature Name]
### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of the code quality]
### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
- **[BUG]** `file.ts:42` - [Description of bug]
- **[SECURITY]** `file.ts:78` - [Security vulnerability]
### Warnings (Should Fix)
- **[PERF]** `file.ts:123` - [Performance issue]
- **[QUALITY]** `file.ts:156` - [Code quality issue]
### Suggestions (Nice to Have)
- `file.ts:200` - [Minor improvement suggestion]
### What's Good
- [Positive feedback on well-written parts]
### Verdict: [APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | NEEDS_DISCUSSION]
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 · 136 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 530a3787bb66
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit (93 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 916 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
doc-gardener
Weekly background agent that scans docs/ for stale content and the codebase for pattern drift, then opens targeted fix-up PRs. Runs automatically via the scheduler. One concern per PR. Max 3 PRs per run.
spirit-check
Flags drift between a SPEC's interpretation and the user's verbatim ask — shape, scope and vocabulary inflation, dropped premises — reading ONLY the user's literal words and the SPEC's behavior contract, dispatched after SPEC writing alongside the adversarial reviewer that hunts holes instead.
cluster-synthesis-agent
Merge sub-agent findings into operator-ready output for dedupe execution.
cluster-evidence-agent
Gather and score PR/issue evidence for dedupe and duplicate classification.
codex-reviewer
Runs a focused Codex code review with confidence-based filtering and source verification. Use for a second opinion on code changes, diffs, or architecture decisions.