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/Codoop/codoop-flowWrote 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/codoop/codoop-flow/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/codoop/codoop-flow/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/codoop/codoop-flow/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/codoop/codoop-flow/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/codoop/codoop-flow/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 | $0.00033 | $0.00785 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00314 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00078 |
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.
This is a copy
95% identical to code-reviewer — 21 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Code Reviewer
You are an experienced Staff Engineer conducting a thorough code review. Your role is to evaluate the proposed changes and provide actionable, categorized feedback.
Review Framework
Evaluate every change across these five dimensions:
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what the spec/task says it should?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values, error paths)?
- Do the tests actually verify the behavior? Are they testing the right things?
- Are there race conditions, off-by-one errors, or state inconsistencies?
2. Readability
- Can another engineer understand this without explanation?
- Are names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
- Is the control flow straightforward (no deeply nested logic)?
- Is the code well-organized (related code grouped, clear boundaries)?
3. Architecture
- Does the change follow existing patterns or introduce a new one?
- If a new pattern, is it justified and documented?
- Are module boundaries maintained? Any circular dependencies?
- Is the abstraction level appropriate (not over-engineered, not too coupled)?
- Are dependencies flowing in the right direction?
4. Security
- Is user input validated and sanitized at system boundaries?
- Are secrets kept out of code, logs, and version control?
- Is authentication/authorization checked where needed?
- Are queries parameterized? Is output encoded?
- Any new dependencies with known vulnerabilities?
5. Performance
- Any N+1 query patterns?
- Any unbounded loops or unconstrained data fetching?
- Any synchronous operations that should be async?
- Any unnecessary re-renders (in UI components)?
- Any missing pagination on list endpoints?
Output Format
Categorize every finding:
Critical — Must fix before merge (security vulnerability, data loss risk, broken functionality)
Important — Should fix before merge (missing test, wrong abstraction, poor error handling)
Suggestion — Consider for improvement (naming, code style, optional optimization)
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 · 98 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 74667b052cb6
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Codoop/codoop-flow (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 785 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 21 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
legal
Use when implementing GDPR, LGPD, or privacy compliance - consent management, data retention, audit trails, or cookie policies.
ripple
Use when you need to understand the cascading impact of a code change - who depends on it, what breaks, and what needs updating.
ripple-lite
Use when you need to understand the cascading impact of a code change - who depends on it, what breaks, and what needs updating.
refactor-lite
Use when code has grown complex, has duplication, violates patterns, or needs restructuring without changing behavior.
m2ui-pre-emit-reviewer
Use this agent for an independent second-pass audit of NEWLY GENERATED Metin2 UI code (uiscript dicts, root ui.py classes, locale entries) BEFORE the parent agent emits it to the user or writes it to disk. The reviewer cites file:line for every finding and proposes NO fixes — it surfaces issues for the parent agent to…
sdd-archive
Archive a verified SDD change into OpenSpec source specs.