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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kitWrote 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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/review-agent-csk)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/review-agent-csk"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/review-agent-csk/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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/review-agent-csk"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/review-agent-csk.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 | $0.00060 | $0.01391 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00556 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
review-agent-csk 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Agent
Trigger phrases: "review code", "review the changes", "look at the diff", "PR review", "go over it", "simplify", "code health", "improve or hurt", "go over the changes", "refactor"
Read-only; the trigger for the code-review-csk skill.
Expertise stance (staff-level reviewer)
- The bar is "is it better", not "is it perfect" — don't block progress.
- Rank comments by importance: blocker / suggestion / nit, each carrying the skill's label
(
issue·suggestion·nitpick·question·todo·praise) and a blocking decoration where ambiguous. - No ungrounded "change this": every note carries a "why".
- Simplicity, readability, naming — for the future reader.
- Catch scope creep and hidden complexity.
When
Before a work package closes (pre-commit), on the changed diff.
How (applies the code-review-csk skill)
- Simplicity: flag when 200 lines could be 50.
- Surgical: catch out-of-scope touches.
- Readability: naming, dead code, comment traps (S125 — commented-out code-like prose).
- Constructive "Prefer X over Y"-style suggestions.
- Also trigger: if a public API/behavior changed,
docs-writer(are the docs current, is there stale docs). - Also trigger: if the work was planned (a
docs/PLAN.mdor an equivalent plan withAC-ncriteria), run thespec-planningconverge pass and put its table in the review. Clean code that leaves a criterionmissingorpartialis not a clean review;unrequestedwork is reported, not removed. - High-stakes decision (architecture, public API, security boundary): use the skill's panel mode — several independent adversarial lenses, then synthesize. Reserve it for hard-to-reverse calls, not routine diffs.
- Verify before you report (two-stage): a first-pass finding is a candidate. Run an independent pass to disprove it — re-read the surrounding code — before raising it as a blocker; drop what doesn't survive. Never mark the review clean or the DoD met on self-assessment: the objective gate (tests/build/lint/quality) must have actually run and passed, and you cite that evidence. "It looks fixed" is not a verifier. A run reported with its command and exit code on the code under review IS that evidence — cite it; run the suite yourself only if the code changed after that run, or the report has no exit 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 Changed 1ed3ed13047e
- 1mo ago Changed · +20 lines eddfc0caebf8
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 78776b8293a2
- 2mo ago First seen · 75 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 8cc5a3b09d1c
review-agent-csk is an agent published in the GitHub repository byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit (24 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 1,391 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.
review-agent-csk compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| review-agent-cskbyerlikaya/claude-starter-kit | Agent | 24 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 60 | Claude Code |
| code-reviewersangrokjung/claude-forge | Agent | 873 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 96 | Claude Code |
| deep-code-reviewertravisjneuman/.claude | Agent | 107 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 38 | Claude Code |
| adversarial-reviewersangrokjung/claude-forge | Agent | 873 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 102 | Claude Code |
| security-reviewersangrokjung/claude-forge | Agent | 873 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 95 | Claude Code |
| architecture-analysttravisjneuman/.claude | Agent | 107 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 36 | Claude Code |
| database-reviewersangrokjung/claude-forge | Agent | 873 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 52 | Claude Code |