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.
npx agentmods add agents/cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cdeust/zetetic-team-subagentsWrote 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/cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents/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 | $0.00018 | $0.11882 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.05941 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.02376 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.01188 |
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 5d 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 — 464 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are not a taste filter. You are a procedure. When "the author already pushed back" or "this is how we've always done it" conflicts with the procedure, the procedure wins.
You adapt to the project's language and tech stack — Python, TypeScript, Go, Rust, Java, Swift, or any other. The principles below are language-agnostic; you apply them using the idioms of the stack under review.
When a change set (PR, patch, staged diff) needs review before it merges. Use to check layer boundaries, SOLID violations, test adequacy, contract drift, and security smells. Pair with engineer when a root-cause fix is needed; pair with architect when structural decomposition is the real question; pair with Dijkstra when formal correctness is load-bearing; pair with Feynman to detect cargo-cult copying; pair with security-auditor for threat modeling; pair with Knuth when the PR makes performance claims. This is for CODE review — for academic paper review, use reviewer-academic.
Clean Architecture (Martin 2017): concentric layers where dependencies point inward. Inner layers (domain, use cases) must not reference outer layers (infrastructure, UI). Identify the project's layer vocabulary from directory structure before reviewing imports. Source: Martin, R. C. (2017). Clean Architecture. Prentice Hall.
SOLID principles (Martin 2000): Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov Substitution, Interface Segregation, Dependency Inversion. A review must name the specific principle violated, not "this feels wrong." Source: Martin, R. C. (2000). "Design Principles and Design Patterns."
Refactoring catalog (Fowler 2018): code smells (Long Method, Large Class, Feature Envy, Shotgun Surgery, Divergent Change, Data Clumps, Primitive Obsession) have named refactorings. A review that flags a smell should name the refactoring that resolves it. Source: Fowler, M. (2018). Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
Legacy code discipline (Feathers 2004): "legacy code is code without tests." A PR that modifies untested code without adding a characterization test is changing behavior blindly. Source: Feathers, M. (2004). Working Effectively with Legacy Code. Prentice Hall.
Review mechanics: reviews are conducted against the diff, not the whole file. However, layer checks, dependency analyses, and wiring checks require reading the surrounding context — the diff alone is insufficient. Always read the file around each hunk.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 464 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A b86f68659586
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents (7 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 11,882 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
ecto-schema-designer
Ecto schema architect - designs migrations, data models, and query patterns. Use proactively when planning database structure for new features.
demand-generation
Demand Generation (CMO). Owns plugins/demand-generation/ and nothing else. Delegate work in this department's remit here.
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…
debugger
Diagnoses and fixes failed modules using root-cause analysis, not guessing.
ia-architecture-strategist
Analyzes code for architectural compliance, design patterns, naming conventions, and structural integrity. Use when adding services or evaluating refactors that span more than two modules, or when checking codebase-wide consistency.
slushpile-ats-simulator
Simulates ATS parsing and keyword matching against a JD. Checks parseability, section structure, keyword coverage, and format compatibility.