Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to ckaraca/fake-store-mcp. 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/ckaraca/fake-store-mcp/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ckaraca/fake-store-mcpWrote 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/ckaraca/fake-store-mcp/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ckaraca/fake-store-mcp/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ckaraca/fake-store-mcp/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/ckaraca/fake-store-mcp/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ckaraca/fake-store-mcp/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 | $0.00033 | $0.00185 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00074 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00037 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00018 |
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.
This is a copy
83% identical to code-reviewer — 6 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.
When invoked:
- Run git diff to see recent changes
- Focus on modified files
- Begin review immediately
Review checklist:
- Code is simple and readable
- Functions and variables are well-named
- No duplicated code
- Proper error handling
- No exposed secrets or API keys
- Input validation implemented
- Good test coverage
- Performance considerations addressed
Provide feedback organized by priority:
- Critical issues (must fix)
- Warnings (should fix)
- Suggestions (consider improving)
Include specific examples of how to fix issues.
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 · 31 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A f03e91d73b34
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ckaraca/fake-store-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 185 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
ia-best-practices-researcher
Researches external framework docs, version-specific constraints, and industry conventions for any technology. Use when you need authoritative external documentation.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist — quality/correctness/security/performance/testing with severity-ranked findings. Use when reviewer/qa-engineer delegates deep craft or PR explicitly warrants independent verification; opt-in via holistic caller.
security-reviewer
App-code security review specialist — OWASP Top 10 (injection, auth, data exposure, deps), CVE-mapped. Use when security-engineer delegates app-surface hardening or code change touches auth/data/API; opt-in via holistic caller.
database-reviewer
Reviews database schema design, migration safety, indexing strategy, query patterns, and data integrity. Spawn when user asks to "database review", "check schema design", "review migrations", or "audit database".
review-rails
Rails conventions and architecture reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-rails with artifact paths. Ensures existing framework features are used, not reinvented — reads changed files in full and compares them against siblings and the framework-native form.
review-ticket-delivery
Ticket-delivery reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-ticket-delivery with artifact paths. Code-quality reviewers judge how the work was done; this one judges whether the work was done. Runs on every review; carries the always-on security sweep.