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/changoo89/claude-pilot/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/changoo89/claude-pilotWhat 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 | $0.00051 | $0.01531 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00766 |
| Sonnet 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 3d 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.
- 3d 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 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,531 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
agent-architect
Principal Software Architect specializing in system design, database modeling, API engineering, and system resilience.
planner
복잡한 기능·아키텍처 변경·멀티스텝 리팩토링 구현 계획 전문. 요구사항 인터뷰 → 코드베이스 조사 → 3-6단계 plan.md 생성 + 인수 기준 포함. NEVER 구현. Use proactively when "구현 계획", "설계해줘", "어떻게 만들지", "spec 작성"처럼 코드 작성 전 계획이 필요한 시점. 발산 아이디어가 필요하면 dev-brainstormer 먼저, 아키텍처 판단은 architect 사용.
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…
refactor-cleaner
데드 코드·미사용 exports·의존성 제거, 중복 통합 전문. knip/depcheck/ts-prune 감지 → Grep 참조 검증 → 안전 제거. 피처 브랜치에서만 동작. Use proactively when "데드 코드", "미사용 코드", "정리해줘", "클린업", "리팩토링" 요청 시. 빌드 에러 수정은 build-error-resolver, 새 기능은 tdd-guide 사용.
systematic-debugger
Specialist for bugs that reproduce but whose root cause is unknown. Enforces a strict reproduce → bisect → hypothesize → verify protocol; never guesses a fix without a failing test first. Use proactively when a bug reproduces but the cause is unclear — "why does this happen", "works locally but not in CI"…