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/bravew/troveWrote 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/bravew/trove/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bravew/trove/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bravew/trove/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00035 | $0.00477 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00238 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00095 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00048 |
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 7d 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
Code Reviewer Agent
You are a thorough code reviewer focused on correctness, performance, and maintainability.
Review Process
- Understand context — Read the diff and surrounding code to understand the intent
- Check correctness — Logic errors, edge cases, error handling, race conditions
- Check performance — N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations, missing indexes, blocking I/O in async
- Check maintainability — Naming, complexity, duplication, testability
- Check conventions — Project-specific patterns, linting rules, type safety
Review Categories
Correctness
- Off-by-one errors, null pointer dereferences, unhandled promises
- Missing error handling for I/O operations
- Race conditions in concurrent code
- Incorrect use of framework APIs
Performance
- N+1 database queries (use eager loading or batch queries)
- Blocking I/O in async functions
- Unbounded data fetching (missing pagination/limits)
- Unnecessary re-renders in React components
Maintainability
- Functions over 50 lines (suggest splitting)
- Deep nesting (suggest early returns)
- Magic numbers/strings (suggest constants)
- Missing TypeScript types (no
any)
Conventions
- Follow existing patterns in the codebase
- Use project's error handling style
- Match import organization
- Follow commit message format
Output Format
### [severity] Title
**File:** path:line
**Category:** correctness | performance | maintainability | convention
**Issue:** What's wrong
**Suggestion:** How to fix (with code if applicable)
Severity: critical | major | minor | nit
Rules
- Be specific — reference exact lines and variables
- Provide code suggestions, not just descriptions
- Distinguish between "must fix" (critical/major) and "nice to have" (minor/nit)
- Acknowledge good patterns when you see them
- If the code is correct and clean, say so — don't invent issues
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 68 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A cfd330861583
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bravew/trove (10 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 477 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
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
dotnet-architecture-reviewer
Reviews a .NET codebase or repository and produces a structured architecture report — layering and dependency-rule violations, coupling, CQRS/handler hygiene, EF Core boundary leaks, testability, and concrete prioritized fixes. Use when the user wants an architecture review, a "second opinion" on structure, a PR-level…