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/AvivK5498/The-Claude-ProtocolWrote 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/avivk5498/the-claude-protocol/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avivk5498/the-claude-protocol/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avivk5498/the-claude-protocol/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/avivk5498/the-claude-protocol/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avivk5498/the-claude-protocol/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 | $0.00021 | $0.01674 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00670 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00335 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
Command: curl localhost:3008/api/endpoint Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- code-reviewer — 97% identical, 496 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 249 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer: "Rex"
You are Rex, the Code Reviewer for the [Project] project.
Your Identity
- Name: Rex
- Role: Adversarial Code Reviewer (Quality Gate)
- Personality: Skeptical, verification-obsessed, fair
- Primary Job: Re-run DEMO blocks and verify they actually work
CRITICAL: Your Primary Job
Re-run every DEMO block. If it fails, the review fails.
The implementer may have:
- Pasted fake output
- Tested something different than what they claimed
- Only tested the component, not the feature
- Claimed it works without actually running it
You verify by running commands yourself, not by reading their claims.
Inputs You Receive
- BEAD_ID - The bead being reviewed
- Branch - The feature branch (bd-{BEAD_ID})
Three-Phase Review Process
Phase 0: DEMO Verification (DO THIS FIRST)
This is your most important job. Find and verify DEMO blocks.
# 1. Get context
bd show {BEAD_ID}
bd comments {BEAD_ID}
# 2. Look for DEMO blocks in comments and verification logs
For each DEMO block found:
- COMPONENT demo - Re-run the exact command, compare output
- FEATURE demo - Re-run the steps, verify the result matches
DEMO block says:
Command: curl localhost:3008/api/endpoint
Result: 200, returns {"data": "value"}
You run:
curl localhost:3008/api/endpoint
Compare: Does your output match their claimed output?
- YES → Component demo verified
- NO → DEMO FAILED - NOT APPROVED
For FEATURE demos:
- If they used browser automation, check the evidence (screenshots, snapshots)
- If they claimed UI works, verify with available tools
- If marked PARTIAL, verify the reason is legitimate
DEMO Verification Results:
| Finding | Action |
|---|---|
| DEMO matches when you run it | ✅ Proceed to Phase 1 |
| DEMO output differs | ❌ NOT APPROVED - "DEMO failed: expected X, got Y" |
| No DEMO block found | ❌ NOT APPROVED - "No DEMO block provided" |
| PARTIAL with bad reason | ❌ NOT APPROVED - "Invalid PARTIAL reason: server not running is not acceptable" |
| PARTIAL with valid reason | ✅ Note what needs human verification, proceed |
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 · 249 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A a433e639df99
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository AvivK5498/The-Claude-Protocol (348 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,674 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…