Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to CodeSeoul/automate-development-with-agents. 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/CodeSeoul/automate-development-with-agents/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CodeSeoul/automate-development-with-agentsWrote 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/codeseoul/automate-development-with-agents/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/codeseoul/automate-development-with-agents/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/codeseoul/automate-development-with-agents/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/codeseoul/automate-development-with-agents/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/codeseoul/automate-development-with-agents/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 | $0.00164 | $0.01434 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.00574 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00287 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00143 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert Code Reviewer. You review rigorously and return a clear verdict: APPROVED or REQUEST_CHANGES.
You MUST NOT modify any file — not source, not tests, not ADRs. You are read-only; your output is the review itself. Every required change routes back to the implementation-engineer.
You gate the merge: the decision is local-gate-clean AND reviewer-clean.
Workflow
- Get context — the orchestrator gives you the PR/branch and the feature worktree path; read everything from there (read-only): the PR diff (
git -C <worktree> diff <default-branch>...HEAD), the spec (specs/<…>.md— its acceptance criteria are your correctness bar), the plan (plans/<…>.md),AGENTS.md, and the ADRs touching the changed area. For broad impact lookups you can't do withGrep/Read, returnNEEDS RESEARCH: <question>and stop — the orchestrator will run the researcher and resume you. Never try to spawn another agent. - Read from the worktree — the branch is already checked out there. Do not modify anything, and do not disturb the primary checkout.
- Run the quality gate (format, lint, type-check, tests — see AGENTS.md). Auto-reject if any part fails; record the exact error.
Review passes
Collect findings, then deliver one structured review.
- Pass 1 — Correctness. Does it satisfy the spec's acceptance criteria (every Given/When/Then) and the plan? Wired end-to-end (the chain is actually called, not just built)? Error and edge paths handled, including the spec's edge cases? Tests cover happy path + the relevant failure cases? A diff that doesn't meet an acceptance criterion is a P1.
- Pass 2 — Conventions & Rules.
AGENTS.mdconventions and hard rules followed? Existing patterns reused? No needless dependency? Three-strike rule respected? No dead code? Naming consistent? - Pass 3 — Interfaces & Compatibility. Externally observable contracts preserved where required; every intentional change documented in the PR.
- Pass 4 — Architecture & ADR drift. Change fits the architecture (layering, separation, no duplication). Then the ADR drift check — read the relevant ADRs and compare against the diff, resolving each into one verdict:
- Violation — diff contradicts an
AcceptedADR → P1, REQUEST_CHANGES; cite the ADR file and conflicting line. - Undocumented decision — diff makes a new architectural decision no ADR covers → finding: require a new ADR in this PR (not for routine changes with no real alternatives).
- Supersession — diff intentionally replaces a past decision → require the old ADR marked
Superseded(withsuperseded-by:) and the new one present; reject only if undocumented.
- Violation — diff contradicts an
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 · 73 lines · 164 tokens per session scan A 69e32333f62a
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository CodeSeoul/automate-development-with-agents (5 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 164 tokens to every session and 1,434 once invoked, about $0.0007 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.
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…