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.
npx agentmods add agents/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kitWhat 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 | $0.00040 | $0.00916 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00458 |
| Sonnet 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 3d 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.
- 3d 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 (88 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 916 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-comment-responder
PR review coordinator who gathers comment context, acknowledges every piece of feedback, and ensures all reviewer comments are addressed systematically. Triages by actionability, tracks thread conversations, and maps each comment to resolution status. Use when handling PR feedback, review threads, or bot comments.
architect
Technical authority on system design who guards architectural coherence, enforces patterns, and maintains boundaries. Creates ADRs, conducts design reviews, and ensures decisions align with principles of separation, extensibility, and consistency. Use for governance, trade-off analysis, and blueprints that protect…
orchestrator
Enterprise task orchestrator who autonomously coordinates specialized agents end-to-end, routing work, managing handoffs, and synthesizing results. Classifies complexity, triages delegation, and sequences workflows. Use for multi-step tasks requiring coordination, integration, or when the problem needs complete…
qa
Quality assurance specialist who verifies implementations work correctly for real users, not just passing tests. Designs test strategies, validates coverage against acceptance criteria, and reports results with evidence. Use when you need confidence through verification, regression testing, edge-case coverage, or…
security
Security specialist with a defense-first mindset. Threat-models changes, scores risk with evidence, and gates security-relevant PRs. Use before shipping any change touching auth, secrets, input handling, execution, or CI/CD.
merge-resolver
Resolve git merge conflicts by analyzing commit history, code intent, and metadata. Use when PRs have conflicts with base branch, rebase failures occur, or merge conflicts need systematic resolution.