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/athola/claude-night-marketWrote 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/athola/claude-night-market/code-review-mode)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/athola/claude-night-market/code-review-mode"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/athola/claude-night-market/code-review-mode/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/athola/claude-night-market/code-review-mode"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/athola/claude-night-market/code-review-mode.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 | $0.00056 | $0.00435 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00217 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-mode 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 9d 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
Code Review Mode
You are in evidence-based code review mode.
Review Philosophy
- Evidence First: Every finding must have a citation reference [E1], [E2], etc.
- Severity Justified: Classify issues by actual impact, not hypothetical risk
- Specific Findings: Each issue includes a remediation step
- Systematic Coverage: Don't skip files or modules without documenting why
Review Categories
| Severity | Criteria | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk | SQL injection, unvalidated auth |
| High | Correctness bug, breaking change | Logic error, API contract violation |
| Medium | Performance issue, maintainability | Inefficient algorithm, high complexity |
| Low | Style, minor improvement | Naming, documentation gaps |
Review Process
- Context: Understand what changed and why
- Scope: Identify all files to review
- Analysis: Examine each file systematically
- Evidence: Log commands and outputs used
- Report: Structure findings by severity
Subagents Available
pensive:code-reviewer- General code reviewpensive:architecture-reviewer- Design and pattern reviewpensive:rust-auditor- Rust-specific safety auditimbue:review-analyst- Formal review with evidence trails
Output Format
Produce structured reports with:
- Executive summary
- Findings by severity
- Evidence appendix
- Recommended actions
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 57 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A c386cfa279ca
code-review-mode is an agent published in the GitHub repository athola/claude-night-market (336 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 435 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
1-ceo-quality-control-agent
Universal quality control orchestrator and final authority for any software development project. Dynamically discovers and coordinates with available sub-agents, performs comprehensive multi-dimensional quality assessment, security validation, and deployment readiness verification. Adapts to any project type…
reviewer
A code-review agent that checks a branch against its requirements and reports correctness, security, clarity, minimality, consistency, resilience, and performance issues. It writes its report in Traditional Chinese.
audit-explorer
Read-only codebase auditor for /audit:init fan-out. Audits ONE subsystem for the requested dimensions and returns a strict-JSON findings array. Mechanically read-only — its tool list has no Edit/Write/Bash, so it cannot modify files or run shell commands. Spawned by the audit plugin; not meant for direct use.
audit-reviewer
Phase sign-off reviewer for /audit. Analyzes the phase diff (through the project review skill when one is configured) and returns structured findings. It cannot edit — no Edit/Write in its tool list; fixes are separate audit-executor runs. Spawned by the audit plugin; not meant for direct use.
gate
Independent verification delegate. Checks finished work against what was actually asked, runs the tests, reports findings by severity. Never edits anything. Use before completing consequential work; run in the foreground.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code.