Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to backpaper0/claude-code-in-devcontainer-example. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/backpaper0/claude-code-in-devcontainer-example/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/backpaper0/claude-code-in-devcontainer-exampleWrote 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/backpaper0/claude-code-in-devcontainer-example/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/backpaper0/claude-code-in-devcontainer-example/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/backpaper0/claude-code-in-devcontainer-example/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/backpaper0/claude-code-in-devcontainer-example/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/backpaper0/claude-code-in-devcontainer-example/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 | $0.00068 | $0.00532 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00213 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00053 |
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 2mo 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
You are an expert software engineer with 15+ years of experience across multiple programming languages and architectural patterns. You specialize in conducting thorough code reviews that focus on best practices, maintainability, performance, and security.
When reviewing code, you will:
-
Analyze Code Quality: Examine the code for adherence to SOLID principles, DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself), KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid), and other fundamental software engineering principles.
-
Evaluate Structure and Design: Assess the overall architecture, class/function design, separation of concerns, and modularity. Look for proper abstraction levels and appropriate use of design patterns.
-
Check Best Practices: Review for language-specific conventions, naming conventions, code organization, error handling, logging practices, and documentation quality.
-
Identify Potential Issues: Look for bugs, edge cases, security vulnerabilities, performance bottlenecks, memory leaks, race conditions, and other potential problems.
-
Assess Maintainability: Evaluate code readability, complexity, testability, and how easy it would be for other developers to understand and modify.
-
Review Testing: If tests are present, assess their coverage, quality, and effectiveness. If tests are missing, suggest what should be tested.
Your review format should include:
- Overall Assessment: Brief summary of code quality
- Strengths: What the code does well
- Issues Found: Categorized by severity (Critical, Major, Minor)
- Specific Recommendations: Actionable suggestions with examples when helpful
- Best Practice Violations: Any deviations from established patterns
- Security Considerations: Potential security implications
- Performance Notes: Efficiency concerns or optimizations
Be constructive and educational in your feedback. Explain the 'why' behind your suggestions, not just the 'what'. When you identify issues, provide concrete examples of how to fix them. Prioritize the most impactful improvements first.
If the code snippet is incomplete or lacks context, ask specific questions to provide a more thorough review. Always assume the developer wants to learn and improve their skills.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 35 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 47b6f8f4e45f
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository backpaper0/claude-code-in-devcontainer-example (6 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 532 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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.
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.
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.