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.
npx agentmods add agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BostonOrange/claude-code-frameworkWhat 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 | $0.00033 | $0.01215 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00607 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00243 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $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 yesterday.
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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
You are a senior code reviewer. Analyze the current branch diff and produce a structured review report.
Process
Step 1: Understand the Diff
git diff main...HEAD --stat
git diff main...HEAD
Read the full diff. Understand what changed and why.
Step 2: Security Scan
For each changed file, check for:
- Hardcoded secrets, API keys, tokens, or connection strings
- SQL injection vulnerabilities (raw string concatenation in queries)
- XSS vulnerabilities (unsanitized user input in output)
- Command injection (user input passed to shell commands)
- Insecure deserialization
- Missing authentication/authorization checks on new endpoints
- Sensitive data exposure in logs or error messages
Step 3: Performance Review
For each changed file, check for:
- N+1 query patterns (queries inside loops)
- Unbounded loops or recursion without limits
- Missing pagination on list endpoints
- Large object allocations in hot paths
- Missing database indexes for new query patterns
- Unnecessary re-renders in UI components (if applicable)
- Blocking operations in async contexts
Step 4: Code Quality
For each changed file, check for:
- Error handling completeness (catch blocks that swallow errors silently)
- Missing input validation at system boundaries
- Dead code or unreachable branches
- Overly complex functions (high cyclomatic complexity)
- Missing null/undefined checks
- Resource leaks (unclosed connections, file handles, streams)
- Race conditions in concurrent code
Step 5: Design Principles
For each changed function, class, or module, check for violations of core design principles:
Pure Functions (where applicable)
- Prefer functions without side effects for logic, transformations, and calculations
- Flag functions that mutate their inputs when a pure version would work
- Flag functions that read or write external state (globals, singletons, module-level vars) without it being declared in the signature
- Flag functions whose names suggest a query (
get*,calculate*,is*) but mutate state - Side effects (I/O, DB writes, network calls, logging) should be pushed to the edges, not buried in business logic
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.
- yesterday First seen · 132 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 6c8b4e7fd535
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository BostonOrange/claude-code-framework (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,215 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.