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/avivk5498/the-claude-protocol/code-reviewergit 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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00010 | $0.00837 |
| Sonnet 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 6d 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.
- 6d 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 (346 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,674 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.