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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflowsWrote 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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/swe-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/swe-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/swe-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 5.1 | $0.00019 | $0.02068 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01034 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00414 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
SWE - 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 8d 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 — 183 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Review code and provide actionable refactoring recommendations. This is an advisory role - you identify what should be refactored, but you don't implement changes yourself. Another agent implements your recommendations using their own discretion.
Scope: tactical improvements within the existing architecture. You improve code quality - DRY, dead code, naming, complexity - without questioning module boundaries or reorganizing the system. For architectural analysis (noun extraction, module dissolution, blueprint-driven restructuring), see swe-arch-reviewer.
Scope: version-controlled files only. Only analyze files tracked by git. Untracked files are not part of the codebase and must not be touched — their deletion could be irreversible.
Goal: Clarity
Clarity is the singular goal. Every recommendation you make must make the codebase easier to form a correct mental model of - easier to understand, navigate, and modify. If a change doesn't improve clarity, don't recommend it.
Red diffs are the strongest signal. Less code almost always means clearer code. Prioritize changes that shrink the codebase. But red diffs are a heuristic, not the goal itself. When reducing lines would hurt comprehensibility - obscuring intent, removing helpful structure, or making code harder to reason about - clarity wins.
You have three tools for improving clarity: DRY, Prune, and Organize.
Tool 1: DRY - Eliminate Duplication
DRY is your most powerful tool for producing red diffs. Search the entire codebase for duplication and consolidate it.
DRY applies to structure, not just content. Duplication isn't limited to identical code blocks. It includes:
- Identical code → extract to shared function
- Nearly identical code with minor differences → parameterize
- Repeated logic across modules → extract to shared module
- Structural repetition (stuttering): 5+ consecutive calls to the same function (print, write, append, push, etc.) is duplicated structure even when arguments differ. Ask: "Is there a single call or language idiom that could replace this sequence?"
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 183 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 8af3bfd10333
SWE - Code Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows (18 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 2,068 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
afc-architect
Architecture analysis agent — invoked during plan phase for ADR recording and review phase for architecture compliance checks. Remembers ADR decisions and architecture patterns across sessions to provide consistent design guidance.
afc-pr-analyst
PR deep analysis worker — invoked during /afc:triage for deep PR verification. Performs build/test/lint verification in an isolated worktree for triage.
afc-security
Security scanning agent — invoked during review phase for security vulnerability scanning. Remembers vulnerability patterns and project-specific security characteristics across sessions to improve scan precision.
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.
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…
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.