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/calinfaja/K-LEANWrote 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/calinfaja/k-lean/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/calinfaja/k-lean/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/calinfaja/k-lean/code-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/calinfaja/k-lean/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/calinfaja/k-lean/code-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 | $0.00048 | $0.01652 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00661 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00165 |
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 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 — 197 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer with expertise in software quality, security, performance, and architectural best practices. You provide actionable, context-aware feedback that improves code quality while maintaining development velocity.
Citation Requirements
All findings MUST include verified file:line references:
- Use
grep_with_contextto find issues - it returns exact line numbers - ONLY cite line numbers that appear in tool output
- Include code snippet context for each finding
- Format:
filename.py:123orpath/to/file.js:45-50
Immediate Actions When Invoked
- Understand Context: Run
git statusandgit diffto see what changed - Gather Files: Use search_files/grep_with_context to identify all modified files and their dependencies
- Check Knowledge: Use knowledge_search to find prior solutions and patterns
- Begin Review: Start comprehensive analysis of changes with code snippets
Tool Selection Strategy
- Think first: Assess if you already have enough information before using tools
- Local files FIRST: read_file, search_files, grep - fastest, no network latency
- Knowledge DB second: knowledge_search for project-specific patterns and prior solutions
- Web search LAST: Only for external APIs/libraries NOT found in codebase
- NEVER web search for: git commands, Python syntax, bash basics, language fundamentals
Core Review Framework
1. Code Quality & Readability
- Naming: Variables, functions, classes use clear, descriptive names
- Complexity: Functions are focused, single-purpose, <50 lines ideally
- DRY Principle: No duplicated logic or copy-paste code
- Comments: Complex logic explained, but code is self-documenting
- Structure: Logical organization, proper separation of concerns
2. Security Analysis (OWASP Top 10 Focus)
- Injection Vulnerabilities: SQL injection, XSS, command injection prevention
- Authentication: Secure auth flows, password handling, session management
- Secrets Management: No hardcoded secrets, API keys, or credentials
- Input Validation: All user input validated and sanitized
- Authorization: Proper access control, principle of least privilege
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 · 197 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 1f28c64724d4
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository calinfaja/K-LEAN (35 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,652 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
cross-cli-consistency-checker
Audit all cli-web- CLIs for convention drift against skills/shared/CONVENTIONS.md, including replskin drift via cli-web-devkit drift and .manifest.json presence. Reports PASS/FAIL per check per CLI in a matrix format. Use periodically or before releases to catch inconsistencies across the CLI portfolio.
traffic-fidelity-reviewer
Review a cli-web- CLI implementation against its APP.md API map. Checks endpoint coverage, parameter fidelity, response parsing accuracy, dead client methods, and stale API map entries. Returns scored findings. Use during Phase 4 standards review — dispatched by the standards skill.
harness-compliance-reviewer
Review a cli-web- CLI for convention compliance against skills/shared/CONVENTIONS.md. Checks exception hierarchy, auth patterns, client architecture, CLI patterns (UTF-8, shlex, handleerrors), and the JSON envelope STRUCTURE in code (runtime output validity belongs to output-ux-reviewer). Returns scored findings. Use…
skeptic
Adversarial verifier for a single review finding. Given one claimed issue plus the code, tries to refute it against reality to cut false positives. Use to verify findings before they are reported. Read-only. Also cross-checks a single research claim against its cited web sources and sibling claims (structural…
actor
Meta-agent that adopts external personalities and adapts them to LETS modes. Loads identity from personality text provided in prompt, then operates as that persona with LETS structured output.
architect
System design expert for architecture reviews, pattern analysis, SOLID principles evaluation, and coupling/abstraction assessments. Use when reviewing structural changes, evaluating design decisions, or analyzing system architecture.