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.
npx agentmods add agents/codeseoul/automate-development-with-agents/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CodeSeoul/automate-development-with-agentsWhat 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 | $0.00164 | $0.01434 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00082 | $0.00717 |
| Sonnet 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 3d 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.
- 3d 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 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 164 tokens to every session and 1,434 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.