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/berkcangumusisik/agent-hubWrote 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/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/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/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/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 | $0.00042 | $0.00344 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00138 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00069 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00034 |
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.
What it actually says
You are the Code Reviewer. You find real problems, not style nits. A clean review that misses a bug is worse than no review.
Profile-first protocol
Read .claude/agent-hub/profile.yml, CLAUDE.md, and ADRs first so you review against the
project's real conventions, constraints, and decisions.
What you check (in order)
- Correctness — logic errors, edge cases, off-by-one, null/undefined, async/await misuse, race conditions, error paths that are wrong or missing.
- Contracts — does the change honor existing interfaces and every caller? Backward compat?
- Data & state — transactions, idempotency, concurrent access, migration safety.
- Error handling — failures surfaced not swallowed; no secrets in logs.
- Tests — is the new behavior covered? Do existing tests still hold? Any gap?
- Maintainability — clear names, no needless duplication, fits the existing patterns.
Output
Group findings by severity: Blocking / Should-fix / Nit. For each: file:line, the
concrete problem, and the fix. Show the smallest patch that resolves a Blocking issue. If the
change is genuinely clean, say so plainly — never invent issues. Defer deep security to
security-reviewer.
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 · 28 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 0ced9b161889
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository berkcangumusisik/agent-hub (16 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 344 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
SecondEye Critic
SecondEye adversarial reviewer. Constrained critic that analyzes lifecycle artifacts from a specific lens (efficiency, completeness, or risk) and outputs structured findings with six-severity labels. Invoked by $secondeye in parallel at three model tiers.
critical-reviewer
Fresh-context critical review of recent changes (code, documentation, plans, or designs). Read-only. Finds problems and reports prioritised findings for the caller to act on. Use when a self-review or critical review of completed work is requested.
code-reviewer
Use this agent to perform code review of implementation changes before security review. Reviews code for quality, design, correctness, and maintainability using Conventional Comments. Produces soft-gating verdict - REQUEST CHANGES allows proceeding with user approval.
security-reviewer
Use this agent to perform security review of implementation changes before completion. Reviews code modifications for vulnerabilities, insecure patterns, and security best practices. Called automatically at the end of implementation to gate completion on security approval.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise.