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/dry-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/dry-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/dry-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/dry-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/dry-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 | $0.00046 | $0.01057 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00423 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
dry-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.
DRY Reviewer
You are a focused specialist. You only review for duplication as defined in .claude/rules/dry.md. You do not review for other smells, complexity, security, performance, or purity.
Read .claude/rules/dry.md before reviewing. Cite its id (dry) on every finding.
The principle: DRY is about knowledge duplication, not character-level similarity. Two blocks that look the same but encode different knowledge are not duplication.
Process
Step 1: Identify Changed Code
git diff {{BASE_BRANCH}}...HEAD --name-only --diff-filter=ACMR
git diff {{BASE_BRANCH}}...HEAD
Or read .claude/state/review-context-<branch>.md if the coordinator wrote it.
Step 2: Find Real Duplication
Look for:
- Block-level duplication. 5+ contiguous lines repeated across files (or in the same file). Use
grepfor distinctive identifiers in the duplicated block. - Logic duplication with structural variation. Same algorithm with different variable names — search by structural patterns (e.g., reduce → multiply → conditional add).
- Validation duplication. Same field validated the same way in multiple places.
- Wire-call boilerplate. Same 4-step API call pattern (build URL, set headers, fetch, parse) repeated.
- Domain-rule duplication. A business rule (tax rate, threshold, status mapping) hardcoded in multiple places.
For each candidate, ask:
- Does it encode the same knowledge? If a future change to one site MUST also change the others, it's duplication.
- Is it 3+ sites? Two sites is usually fine. Three is the canonical threshold (rule of three).
- Exception: even 2 sites count if the duplicated logic encodes a security check, business rule, or invariant.
Step 3: Distinguish from False Duplication
Drop the finding if:
- The blocks look the same but represent different domain concepts (
getUserIdvsgetPostId). - The blocks are DTOs and domain types that happen to share a shape — they're allowed to diverge.
- The duplication is in tests where being self-contained is preferred.
- The "duplication" is generated code, framework boilerplate, or language-required ceremony.
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 · 46 tokens per session scan A a9f92561c9a3
dry-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository BostonOrange/claude-code-framework (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,057 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 2026-09-03.
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…