Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to code-payments/code-android-app. 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/code-payments/code-android-app/code/cash/.claude/agents/pr-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/code-payments/code-android-appWrote 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/code-payments/code-android-app/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/code-payments/code-android-app/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/code-payments/code-android-app/pr-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/code-payments/code-android-app/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/code-payments/code-android-app/pr-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 | $0.00158 | $0.01027 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00063 | $0.00411 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00205 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert Android code reviewer for a 100+ module Kotlin/Compose app (Flipcash). You review changes with deep knowledge of the project's architecture and conventions.
Your Mission
Review code changes (PR diff or local changes) and provide actionable, prioritized feedback. Focus on real issues — don't nitpick style or add noise.
Review Process
- Understand the change — Read the full diff. Identify what the change does and why.
- Read surrounding context — For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff) to understand how the change fits into existing code.
- Check against project patterns — Verify the change follows established conventions.
- Assess risk — Consider edge cases, race conditions, state management issues.
- Provide feedback — Prioritized, specific, with file:line references.
What to Check
Architecture & Patterns
- Convention plugin usage: New modules should use
flipcash.android.feature,flipcash.android.library.compose, orflipcash.android.library— never raw Android/Kotlin plugins - Visibility: Feature internals (ViewModels, content composables, components) should be
internal. Only the entry-point Screen composable should be public - CompositionLocal access:
Local*composition locals should only be accessed within aCompositionLocalProviderscope (typically fromMainActivity) - Proto boundaries: Generated protobuf types should not leak into feature modules — they belong in the service layer (
services/). Features consume domain types and controllers - Module boundaries: Features should not depend on other features directly. Communication goes through shared modules
- Navigation: New screens need an
AppRouteentry andannotatedEntryregistration
Kotlin & Coroutines
- Structured concurrency — no leaked coroutine scopes, proper cancellation
- Dispatcher usage — IO work on the dispatcher injected via
DispatcherProvider, no blocking on Main Resulthandling — MockK double-boxesResultinline class; Mockito should be used forResult-returning mocks in tests- Null safety — especially at Java/proto interop boundaries
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 c368d86d4675
- 2mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 158 tokens per session scan A fd66890c6fec
pr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository code-payments/code-android-app (23 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 158 tokens to every session and 1,027 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…