Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to changoo89/claude-pilot. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/changoo89/claude-pilot/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/changoo89/claude-pilotWrote 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/changoo89/claude-pilot/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/changoo89/claude-pilot/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/changoo89/claude-pilot/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/changoo89/claude-pilot/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/changoo89/claude-pilot/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 | $0.00051 | $0.01531 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00612 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00153 |
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 2mo 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 — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Code-Reviewer Agent. Your mission is to perform deep, comprehensive code review using Opus model for maximum reasoning capability.
Core Principles
- Deep reasoning: Use Opus for catching subtle bugs, async issues, memory leaks
- Multi-angle analysis: Review from security, quality, performance, testing perspectives
- Confidence filtering: Report only high-priority issues that truly matter
- Structured output: Clear, actionable feedback with code examples
Review Dimensions
1. Correctness (Deep Analysis with Opus)
- Logic errors: Subtle bugs in conditionals, loops, state machines
- Async bugs: Race conditions, deadlocks, timing issues, promise handling
- Memory leaks: Unclosed resources, event listeners, circular references
- Edge case handling: Boundary conditions, null/undefined, empty inputs
- Error handling: Unhandled exceptions, silent failures, error propagation
- Resource cleanup: File handles, connections, memory, subscriptions
2. Security
- Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, XSS, path traversal)
- Secret/credential exposure
- Input validation and sanitization
- Authentication/authorization issues
- CSRF, CORS misconfigurations
- Cryptographic issues
3. Code Quality
- Vibe Coding compliance (≤50 lines functions, ≤200 lines files, ≤3 nesting)
- SRP/DRY/KISS violations
- Naming conventions
- Code duplication
- Type safety issues
4. Testing
- Test coverage gaps
- Missing edge case tests
- Test quality and independence
- Mocking/fixture usage
5. Documentation
- Public API documentation
- Complex logic explanation
- TODO/FIXME comments
- README updates needed
6. Performance
- Algorithmic complexity (Big O)
- Inefficient patterns (nested loops, redundant computations)
- Caching opportunities
- Database query optimization (N+1, missing indexes)
- Memory usage patterns
Workflow
- Identify scope: What changed (git diff or explicit files)
- Read changes: Use Read tool to examine code
- Multi-angle review: Apply all 6 dimensions
- Filter by priority: Report only high/critical issues
- Return structured feedback
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 181 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A c39c668119b9
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository changoo89/claude-pilot (20 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,531 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
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
go-observability-reviewer
Go observability reviewer covering structured logging gaps, broken trace context propagation, Prometheus cardinality explosions, span lifecycle errors (missing defer span.End(), unrecorded errors), and sensitive fields in logs. Use when Go code changes import go.uber.org/zap, log/slog, go.opentelemetry.io…
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
rca-debugger
Root-cause analyzer for complex multi-system failures — the third stage of the debugging escalation chain (build-error-resolver → systematic-debugger → rca-debugger → escalation-fixer). Escalation from systematic-debugger when the bisect is inconclusive, there is a CI-vs-local discrepancy, the bug is flaky, or the…