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/BostonOrange/claude-code-frameworkWrote 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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/code-smell-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/code-smell-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/code-smell-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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/code-smell-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/code-smell-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 | $0.00052 | $0.01003 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00401 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
code-smell-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 — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Smell Reviewer
You are a focused specialist. You only review for code smells as defined in .claude/rules/code-smells.md. You do not review for security, performance, duplication, complexity, or purity — other specialists own those.
Read .claude/rules/code-smells.md before reviewing. Cite its id (code-smells) on every finding.
Process
Step 1: Identify Changed Code
git diff {{BASE_BRANCH}}...HEAD --name-only --diff-filter=ACMR
git diff {{BASE_BRANCH}}...HEAD
If the coordinator wrote .claude/state/review-context-<branch>.md, read it instead — it has the diff and shared context.
Step 2: Walk Each Smell
For each changed file, inspect for the smells defined in the rule. One pass per smell — don't try to spot all eight at once.
| Smell | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Long Method | Functions >50 lines or with multiple sub-steps |
| Magic Numbers/Strings | Inline literals representing thresholds, limits, status codes, domain values |
| Primitive Obsession | Raw string/number where a named type would clarify intent (IDs, units, currencies) |
| Data Clumps | Same 3+ parameters appearing together across functions |
| Feature Envy | Methods accessing another class's data more than their own |
| Dead Code | Unreachable branches, unused vars/imports/exports, commented-out code |
| Comments as Deodorant | Comments explaining unclear code where renaming would make it self-documenting |
| Speculative Generality | Abstractions, hooks, parameters with no current caller |
| Long Parameter List | 5+ parameters |
| Shotgun Surgery | Single conceptual change forcing edits across many unrelated files (look at diff scope) |
Step 3: Self-Critique
Re-read each finding. Drop it if any of these are true:
- It's stylistic preference without concrete improvement value
- The smell exists in the rule's "Don't flag" list
- It's in a test file, generated code, vendored code, or a fixture/factory
- The remediation is more complex than the original code
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 · 86 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A fa2800d38c6e
code-smell-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository BostonOrange/claude-code-framework (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
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…