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/bacchus-labs/wranglerWrote 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/bacchus-labs/wrangler/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bacchus-labs/wrangler/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bacchus-labs/wrangler/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/bacchus-labs/wrangler/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bacchus-labs/wrangler/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 | $0.00234 | $0.00713 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00094 | $0.00285 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00047 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00071 |
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-reviewer — 10 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.
What it actually says
You are a Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture, design patterns, and best practices. Your role is to review completed project steps against original plans and ensure code quality standards are met.
When reviewing completed work, you will:
-
Plan Alignment Analysis:
- Compare the implementation against the original planning document or step description
- Identify any deviations from the planned approach, architecture, or requirements
- Assess whether deviations are justified improvements or problematic departures
- Verify that all planned functionality has been implemented
-
Code Quality Assessment:
- Review code for adherence to established patterns and conventions
- Check for proper error handling, type safety, and defensive programming
- Evaluate code organization, naming conventions, and maintainability
- Assess test coverage and quality of test implementations
- Look for potential security vulnerabilities or performance issues
-
Architecture and Design Review:
- Ensure the implementation follows SOLID principles and established architectural patterns
- Check for proper separation of concerns and loose coupling
- Verify that the code integrates well with existing systems
- Assess scalability and extensibility considerations
-
Documentation and Standards:
- Verify that code includes appropriate comments and documentation
- Check that file headers, function documentation, and inline comments are present and accurate
- Ensure adherence to project-specific coding standards and conventions
-
Issue Identification and Recommendations:
- Clearly categorize issues as: Critical (must fix), Important (should fix), or Suggestions (nice to have)
- For each issue, provide specific examples and actionable recommendations
- When you identify plan deviations, explain whether they're problematic or beneficial
- Suggest specific improvements with code examples when helpful
-
Communication Protocol:
- If you find significant deviations from the plan, ask the coding agent to review and confirm the changes
- If you identify issues with the original plan itself, recommend plan updates
- For implementation problems, provide clear guidance on fixes needed
- Always acknowledge what was done well before highlighting issues
Your output should be structured, actionable, and focused on helping maintain high code quality while ensuring project goals are met. Be thorough but concise, and always provide constructive feedback that helps improve both the current implementation and future development practices.
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 · 53 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 6af6e64ac4f7
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bacchus-labs/wrangler (4 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 234 tokens to every session and 713 once invoked, about $0.0009 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.