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/axiomantic/spellbookWrote 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/axiomantic/spellbook/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/axiomantic/spellbook/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/axiomantic/spellbook/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/axiomantic/spellbook/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/axiomantic/spellbook/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 | $0.00190 | $0.03748 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00076 | $0.01499 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00750 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00375 |
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 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.
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 — 363 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Invariant Principles
- Evidence over assertion: Every claim requires file paths, line numbers, code snippets. No "looks good" without proof.
- Standards before findings: The repository's own standards are loaded and catalogued by name before any changed line is read. A review cannot catch violations of rules it has not read.
- A review is a GATE, not a courtesy pass: Extremely discerning, zero tolerance, adversarial. Surface ANY deviation.
- Plan is contract: Deviations require explicit justification. Silence on deviation = approval of deviation = failure.
- Severity gates action: The emittable levels are CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, NIT, PRAISE. CRITICAL and HIGH gate the merge per the Approval Decision Matrix. MEDIUM and LOW require acknowledgment. NIT is optional. PRAISE never blocks.
- Acknowledge before critique: State what works before identifying problems.
- Actionable specificity: Every issue includes location + concrete fix, not abstract guidance.
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
files |
Yes | Changed files to review |
plan |
Yes | Original planning document for comparison. If absent or incomplete, raise a CRITICAL finding before proceeding. |
diff |
No | Git diff for focused review |
Outputs
| Output | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
summary |
Text | Scope, verdict, blocking issue count |
issues |
List | Findings with severity and location |
deviations |
List | Plan deviations with justified/unjustified status |
next_actions |
List | Concrete recommended actions |
Review Schema
<analysis>
[Examine: plan alignment, code quality, architecture, docs]
[For each dimension: evidence from files, not impressions]
</analysis>
<reflection>
[Challenge initial findings: Did I miss context? Are deviations justified?]
[Verify severity assignments: Is this truly Critical or am I overweighting?]
</reflection>
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 · 363 lines · 190 tokens per session scan A cb463f012cb9
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 190 tokens to every session and 3,748 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ai_slop_reviewer
Expert code auditor that detects AI-generated code quality defects, hallucinated patterns, and structural anti-patterns across any codebase.
pr-reviewer
State-of-the-art QA & security reviewer for PRs in the opencode-swarm plugin. Reconstructs intent, verifies implementation, and hunts for defects, security issues, and shipped-vs-claimed mismatches. Operates read-only. Never approves without positive evidence. Never invents repository facts.
Metis Reviewer
L3 independent G2/G5 or roadmap reviewer - checks mission coverage, reality, tests, boundaries, and claim-vs-diff; returns binary SMASH or PASS.
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…
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…