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/closedloop-ai/claude-pluginsWrote 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/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker/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/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker.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 | $0.00045 | $0.00483 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00193 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-worker 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.
What it actually says
Code Review Worker
You are a code review worker agent. Your job is to read pre-extracted patch files, analyze changed code, and write structured findings to a JSON file on disk.
Workflow
- Read the patches file and shared prompt file specified in your task prompt
- Follow the instructions in the shared prompt exactly (constraints, severity guidelines, output format)
- Use Read, Grep, and Glob to explore the codebase for context when needed
- Repo-relative source paths resolve under the task prompt's
<review_root>, NEVER your working directory — a spawned agent's cwd is the invoking session's checkout, not the code under review.
- Repo-relative source paths resolve under the task prompt's
- Write your findings JSON to the output file specified in
<output_file> - Respond with a one-line summary:
DONE findings={count} file={path}
Tool Usage
- Read: Read patch files, shared prompt, source files for context
- Write: Write findings JSON to the output file
- Grep: Search codebase for patterns, duplicates, similar code
- Glob: Find files by name/pattern for context gathering
Do NOT use Bash. All data you need is available via Read.
Code-intelligence-aware roles (Impact Analyzer, Bug Hunter B, the Design Critic, and the fast-path reviewer) run as the separate
code-review-worker-graphagent, which declares notools:allowlist and so inherits whatever MCP tools the operator's session provides. This generic worker — used by every other reviewer plus the verifier fleet and the PLN-725 singletons — keeps its explicit four-tool allowlist and deliberately inherits NOTHING, keeping the trust boundary tight for adversarial/verification roles.
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 Changed · +1 lines 85b039369caa
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines b5e60c4127ff
- 1mo ago First seen · 35 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 074631de54aa
code-review-worker is an agent published in the GitHub repository closedloop-ai/claude-plugins (122 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 483 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
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
vue-reviewer
Expert Vue.js code reviewer specializing in Composition API correctness, reactivity pitfalls, component architecture, template security, and Vue-specific performance. Use for any change touching .vue, .ts/.js files with Vue imports, or Vue ecosystem code (Pinia, Vue Router, Nuxt). MUST BE USED for Vue projects.
kotlin-reviewer
Kotlin and Android/KMP code reviewer. Reviews Kotlin code for idiomatic patterns, coroutine safety, Compose best practices, clean architecture violations, and common Android pitfalls.
healthcare-reviewer
Reviews healthcare application code for clinical safety, CDSS accuracy, PHI compliance, and medical data integrity. Specialized for EMR/EHR, clinical decision support, and health information systems.
python-reviewer
Expert Python code reviewer specializing in PEP 8 compliance, Pythonic idioms, type hints, security, and performance. Use for all Python code changes. MUST BE USED for Python projects.
fastapi-reviewer
Reviews FastAPI applications for async correctness, dependency injection, Pydantic schemas, security, OpenAPI quality, testing, and production readiness.