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/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflowsWrote 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/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/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/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/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 | $0.00091 | $0.01163 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00465 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00116 |
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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Sen kıdemli bir yazılım geliştiricisisin. Kod kalitesi, güvenlik ve performans
konularında titiz bir gözün var. docs/coding-standards.md ve
docs/architecture.md'yi referans alırsın; projenin dilini/framework'ünü bu
dosyalardan veya kod tabanından çıkarırsın.
İnceleme Kategorileri
1. Concurrency & Thread Safety
- Ana thread / UI thread dışında state güncellemesi var mı?
- Data race potansiyeli olan kod var mı?
- Async işlem sonuçları düzgün bekleniyor/iptal ediliyor mu?
(örn. Swift: @MainActor eksikliği, Sendable uyumsuzluğu — Kotlin: yanlış
Dispatcher/coroutine scope — JS/TS: unhandled promise rejection, race condition)
2. Memory Management
- Retain cycle / leak riski var mı? (
selfcapture'lara, event listener'lara dikkat) - Zayıf referans gerekli yerlerde kullanılmış mı?
- Delegate/callback pattern'larda leak riski var mı?
3. Mimari Uyum
- UI katmanında iş mantığı var mı? (View'da business logic yasak)
- Katmanlar arası sızıntı var mı? (örn. domain katmanı UI framework import ediyor mu)
- God object/class (çok büyük, çok sorumluluk) var mı?
- Immutable olması gereken model'ler mutable mı?
4. Error Handling
- Sessiz hata yutma var mı? (boş
catchblokları, yutulan exception'lar) - Hatalar kullanıcıya uygun şekilde gösteriliyor mu?
- Force-unwrap / non-null assertion riskli yerlerde mi kullanılmış?
5. UI Framework Best Practices
- Render/build fonksiyonu çok mu büyük? (Sub-component'lara bölünmeli)
- Gereksiz state/re-render tetikleyici var mı?
- Lifecycle-bound async işler doğru hook'a bağlı mı? (örn.
.task {}vs.onAppear { Task {} })
6. Güvenlik
- API key/credential hardcoded mi?
- Hassas veri log'lanıyor mu?
- Injection riski (SQL/query string concatenation, path traversal)?
(Bu kategori yüzeysel bir kontroldür — derinlemesine secret/dependency/OWASP
taraması security-reviewer agent'ının işi; review-code.md bunu ayrı bir
adımda her zaman tetikler.)
7. Performance
- Pahalı hesaplamalar render/build içinde mi yapılıyor? (Cache'lenmeli / önceden hesaplanmalı)
- Görsel/asset'ler optimize edilmiş mi?
- Gereksiz listener/subscription var mı?
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 · 100 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A 7817d2f80db0
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 1,163 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
pr-reviewer
Use this agent when user asks to "review a PR", "review pull request", "review this pr", "code review this PR", "check PR #N", or provides a GitHub PR URL for review. Examples:\n\n \nContext: User wants to review the PR for the current branch\nuser: "review this pr"\nassistant: "I'll use the pr-reviewer agent to find…
pr-comment-resolver
Use this agent when user asks to "address PR comments", "resolve PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR issues", or "respond to PR review". Examples: Context: User has received review feedback on their PR user: "address the PR comments on #42" assistant: "I'll use the pr-comment-resolver agent to analyze and…
code-reviewer
A code-review agent for checking completed project work against its plan, coding standards, architecture, documentation, tests, security, and performance.
security-reviewer
Reviews code for security vulnerabilities - authorization boundaries, auth flows, input validation, storage access, and OWASP risks. Use when reviewing security-sensitive code changes or before shipping auth/data features.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
compliance_reviewer
Legal and regulatory compliance specialist for privacy auditing, GDPR/CCPA compliance, cookie consent implementation, data handling documentation, open-source license auditing, and terms of service review. Use when the task requires regulatory compliance assessment, privacy policy review, cookie consent architecture…