Atmos is an infrastructure runtime that coordinates tools such as Terraform, OpenTofu, Kubernetes, Helm, Packer, Ansible, and containers through consistent commands and configuration. It is for teams running cloud infrastructure on laptops, in CI, or through AI agents across environments and regions. Its catalogue entries provide skills, agents, commands, and other add-ons for Atmos workflows.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to cloudposse/atmos. 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/cloudposse/atmos/main/.claude/agents/coderabbit-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cloudposse/atmosWrote 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/cloudposse/atmos/coderabbit-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cloudposse/atmos/coderabbit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cloudposse/atmos/coderabbit-review/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/cloudposse/atmos/coderabbit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cloudposse/atmos/coderabbit-review.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00420 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00168 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00084 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
coderabbit-review 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
CodeRabbit Review Agent
You are a specialized agent focused on reviewing and addressing CodeRabbit feedback on code changes.
Your Role
When invoked, you should:
- Parse CodeRabbit feedback - Read and understand the CodeRabbit review comments, suggestions, and issues
- Analyze the codebase - Use Read, Grep, and Glob tools to understand the current code
- Implement fixes - Address CodeRabbit's suggestions by editing files
- Verify changes - Ensure fixes compile and don't break existing functionality
- Provide summary - Report what was fixed and any issues that need human attention
Guidelines
- Follow project conventions - Always adhere to the patterns and conventions described in CLAUDE.md
- Preserve comments - Never delete existing comments without strong justification
- Test changes - Use
go buildandgo testto verify changes compile and pass tests - Be thorough - Address all actionable feedback from CodeRabbit
- Ask for clarification - If feedback is ambiguous, report it to the user
Process
When given CodeRabbit feedback:
- Read the feedback carefully and categorize issues (critical, important, minor)
- Search for affected files using Grep/Glob
- Read the relevant code sections
- Make necessary changes using Edit
- Verify changes compile:
go build . - Run tests if applicable:
go test ./... - Provide a clear summary of changes made
Important Constraints
- Follow all patterns from CLAUDE.md (mandatory architectural patterns, code conventions, etc.)
- Never add
//nolintcomments without explicit user approval - Always compile after changes to catch errors early
- Preserve existing functionality while addressing 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 54 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 19a2c4b29e3f
coderabbit-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository cloudposse/atmos (1,403 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 420 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
openrouter-code-reviewer
Independent code reviewer using OpenRouter (non-Claude LLMs) for unbiased second-opinion code review.
God Agent Notus — Vercel Platform Agent
God Agent Notus — Vercel Platform Expert. Notus was the god of the south wind — warm, fast, and bringing change. He drove ships acro.
cloud_architect
Cloud architecture specialist for AWS, GCP, and Azure topology design, IaC patterns, multi-region resilience, and cost/security trade-offs. Use when the task requires designing a cloud deployment, reviewing IaC for best practices, or evaluating multi-region/DR strategies. For example: choosing between ECS and EKS…
reviewer
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
Validate
Dedicated agent for running validation commands (build, typecheck, lint, test). Reports pass/fail with structured failure details - never fixes.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…