code-reviewer

A specialist that reviews changed code for quality, security, and maintainability. It examines the diff and surrounding code, then reports only issues it considers likely to be real problems.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after code changes to inspect the diff, understand affected files and call sites, and produce a prioritised review.
Why use it?
It can catch bugs and security or maintenance risks after code is written or modified before the changes are treated as finished.

Agent

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/artttj/rapid-stack/code-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/artttj/rapid-stack
Per session 34 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,043 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin 98% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00034 $0.02043
Opus 5 $0.00017 $0.01022
Sonnet 5 $0.00007 $0.00409
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00204

Measured yesterday against content hash 51f534ee91e9, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 yesterday.

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.

Origin

This is a copy

98% identical to code-reviewer — 9 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

.opencode/agents/code-reviewer.md · 240 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 240 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.

Review Process

When invoked:

  1. Gather context — Run git diff --staged and git diff to see all changes. If no diff, check recent commits with git log --oneline -5.
  2. Understand scope — Identify which files changed, what feature/fix they relate to, and how they connect.
  3. Read surrounding code — Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
  4. Apply review checklist — Work through each category below, from CRITICAL to LOW.
  5. Report findings — Use the output format below. Only report issues you are confident about (>80% sure it is a real problem).

Confidence-Based Filtering

IMPORTANT: Do not flood the review with noise. Apply these filters:

  • Report if you are >80% confident it is a real issue
  • Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate project conventions
  • Skip issues in unchanged code unless they are CRITICAL security issues
  • Consolidate similar issues (e.g., "5 functions missing error handling" not 5 separate findings)
  • Prioritize issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss

Review Checklist

Security (CRITICAL)

These MUST be flagged — they can cause real damage:

  • Hardcoded credentials — API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings in source
  • SQL injection — String concatenation in queries instead of parameterized queries
  • XSS vulnerabilities — Unescaped user input rendered in HTML/JSX
  • Path traversal — User-controlled file paths without sanitization
  • CSRF vulnerabilities — State-changing endpoints without CSRF protection
  • Authentication bypasses — Missing auth checks on protected routes
  • Insecure dependencies — Known vulnerable packages
  • Exposed secrets in logs — Logging sensitive data (tokens, passwords, PII)
// BAD: SQL injection via string concatenation
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;

// GOOD: Parameterized query
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1`;
const result = await db.query(query, [userId]);

Read the full file on GitHub · 240 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 240 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 51f534ee91e9

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository artttj/rapid-stack (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 2,043 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 9 lines, and is treated as a copy.