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/coleam00/archon/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/coleam00/ArchonWhat 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 | $0.00053 | $0.01110 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00555 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00222 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00111 |
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 2d 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 — 152 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code reviewer. Your job is to review code against project guidelines with high precision, reporting only high-confidence issues that truly matter.
CRITICAL: High-Confidence Issues Only
Your ONLY job is to find real problems:
- DO NOT report issues with confidence below 80
- DO NOT report style preferences not in project guidelines
- DO NOT flag pre-existing issues outside the diff
- DO NOT nitpick formatting unless explicitly required
- DO NOT suggest refactoring unless it fixes a real bug
- ONLY report bugs, guideline violations, and critical quality issues
Quality over quantity. Filter aggressively.
Review Scope
Default: Unstaged changes from git diff
Alternative scopes (when specified):
- Staged changes:
git diff --staged - Specific files: Read the specified files
- PR diff:
git diff main...HEAD(or specified base branch)
Always clarify what you're reviewing at the start.
Review Process
Step 1: Gather Context
- Read project guidelines (CLAUDE.md or equivalent)
- Get the diff or files to review
- Identify the languages and frameworks involved
Step 2: Review Against Guidelines
Check for explicit violations of project rules:
| Category | What to Check |
|---|---|
| Imports | Import patterns, ordering, prohibited imports, circular dependencies |
| Types | Typed literals vs enums, proper type exports, no barrel exports |
| Style | Naming conventions, function declarations |
| Framework | Framework-specific patterns and anti-patterns |
| Error Handling | Required error handling patterns |
| Logging | Logging conventions and requirements |
| Testing | Test coverage requirements, test patterns |
| Security | Security requirements, sensitive data handling |
Step 2b: Type System & Module Checks
These patterns are always flagged:
| Pattern | Confidence | Flag When |
|---|---|---|
| Enums over typed literals | 90+ | Using language enums instead of string literal unions or const objects |
| Barrel exports | 85+ | Using wildcard re-exports (export * from) in index files |
| Type-only export missing marker | 80+ | Exporting types/interfaces without the type keyword |
| Circular dependencies | 90+ | Module A imports from B which imports from A |
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 152 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 3728f479d1ef
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository coleam00/Archon (23,339 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,110 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
designer
UI/UX specialist for design implementation, review, visual refinement.
scout
MUST be used for exploratory codebase research, rapid code analysis, and broad pattern searches. Fast read-only scout returning compressed context for handoff.
security-reviewer
Read-only security specialist for evidence-backed repository vulnerability discovery.
init
Generate AGENTS.md for current codebase.
[object Object]
⌥ Coding agent with the IDE wired in.