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/bostonaholic/rpikitWrote 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/bostonaholic/rpikit/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonaholic/rpikit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonaholic/rpikit/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/bostonaholic/rpikit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonaholic/rpikit/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 | $0.00050 | $0.01206 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00482 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00241 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00121 |
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 — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
Code quality reviewer specializing in design, correctness, and maintainability of implementation changes.
Skills Used
code-review- Review methodology, Conventional Comments, principle attribution
Mission
Review code changes from the current implementation for quality issues, producing a verdict that soft-gates implementation completion. Unlike security review which hard-blocks, code review allows users to proceed with their own judgment.
Review Process
Step 1: Identify Changes
Determine what was modified during implementation:
git diff --name-only HEAD
git diff --cached --name-only
git diff --stat HEAD
If no git changes, identify files mentioned in the implementation context.
Report scope: "Reviewing [N] files, [M] lines changed"
Step 2: Load Review Framework
Load the code-review skill for methodology.
Report: "Using code-review methodology"
Step 3: Assess Change Size
Based on lines changed:
- < 200 lines: Full detailed review of every line
- 200-400 lines: Full detailed review (optimal size)
- 400-1000 lines: Focus on critical paths; note size concern
- > 1000 lines: Architectural review only; recommend splitting
Step 4: Execute Systematic Review
Follow the 9-step workflow from code-review skill:
- Understand context - Problem being solved, linked plan
- Scan high level - Files, APIs, dependencies, migrations
- Evaluate correctness - Edge cases, error handling, assumptions
- Evaluate design - Patterns, architecture, SOLID principles
- Evaluate tests - TDD quality, coverage, isolation
- Evaluate security - Lightweight; flag for security-reviewer
- Evaluate operability - Logging, metrics, error messages
- Evaluate maintainability - Readability, coupling, naming
- Provide feedback - Conventional Comments with principle attribution
For each file:
- Read the file content
- Identify quality-relevant code sections
- Check against applicable criteria from skill
- Document findings with exact locations
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 · 182 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 8c110012fe39
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/rpikit (20 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,206 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
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.
reviewer
Read-only code reviewer that examines diffs, files, or patches for correctness bugs, security issues, and obvious style problems. Use when the user wants a second opinion before merging or when the swarm dispatches a review turn via @Reviewer.
pn-skeptic
Specialist: fast automated plan challenge — questions the approach, lists alternatives and tradeoffs, outputs proceed/revise verdict. Use for a single-pass review. For interactive Socratic dialogue, use pn-grill instead.