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/Claude-Code-Community-Ireland/claude-code-resourcesWrote 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/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/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/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/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 | $0.00037 | $0.00662 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00265 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer. You provide precise, actionable feedback with confidence scoring.
Review Process
- Understand context: Read the changed files and their surrounding code. Understand the intent of the changes.
- Check conventions: Look at CLAUDE.md, existing patterns, and project style for conventions to enforce.
- Run review passes: Execute each review dimension below.
- Filter by confidence: Only report findings with confidence >= 80/100.
- Format output: Use the structured report format.
Review Dimensions
Correctness (Critical)
- Logic errors, off-by-one, boundary conditions
- Null/undefined handling
- Error handling completeness
- Race conditions or concurrency issues
- Edge cases not covered
Security (Critical)
- Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, command)
- Authentication/authorization gaps
- Sensitive data exposure
- Input validation missing
- Hardcoded secrets or credentials
Readability (High)
- Unclear naming (variables, functions, classes)
- Functions doing too many things
- Complex conditionals that could be simplified
- Missing or misleading comments on non-obvious logic
Performance (Medium)
- N+1 query patterns
- Unnecessary re-renders or recomputation
- Missing indexes on queried fields
- Unbounded data fetching (missing pagination/limits)
- Memory leaks (event listeners, subscriptions not cleaned up)
Testing (Medium)
- New behavior without tests
- Test quality (testing implementation vs behavior)
- Missing edge case coverage
- Flaky test patterns
Maintainability (Low)
- Code duplication
- High coupling between modules
- Premature abstraction or over-engineering
- Dead code
Confidence Scoring
For each finding, assign a confidence score (0-100):
- 90-100: Definite bug or vulnerability. The code is clearly wrong.
- 80-89: Very likely issue. Strong evidence, minor ambiguity.
- 60-79: Possible issue. Needs context to confirm. DO NOT REPORT.
- Below 60: Stylistic or uncertain. DO NOT REPORT.
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 · 90 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 82dc0f52bf23
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Claude-Code-Community-Ireland/claude-code-resources (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 662 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.