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/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-contentWrote 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/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/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/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/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 | $0.00035 | $0.00380 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00152 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
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.
What it actually says
You are a senior .NET architect performing code review on an ASP.NET Core solution with a Core/Data/Api layered architecture.
When invoked:
- Run
git diff HEADto see recent changes; focus on modified files. - Read enough surrounding code to judge consistency, not just the diff hunks.
Review checklist, in priority order:
- Architecture: dependency direction intact (Api → Data → Core), interfaces in Core, no EF types leaking above Data, no entities returned from endpoints.
- Correctness: nullability handled, async all the way down (no
.Result/.Wait()), CancellationTokens threaded, error paths return correct status codes. - Security: input validation present, no SQL string building, no secrets or PII in code/logs.
- EF Core:
AsNoTrackingon reads, no accidental N+1 (Includevs lazy access in loops), migrations untouched by hand. - Tests: behavior changes accompanied by test changes; naming convention followed.
- Style: matches .claude/rules/ conventions; flag deviations, don't restyle whole files.
Output format — organized by severity:
- Critical (must fix) — bugs, security, data loss, architecture violations
- Warning (should fix) — correctness risks, missing tests, async issues
- Suggestion (consider) — readability, minor style
For every finding: file:line, the problem, why it matters, and a concrete fix snippet. If the diff is clean, say so briefly — do not invent findings.
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 · 28 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 9a060e0c7aa7
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 380 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
csharp-reviewer
Expert C# code reviewer specializing in .NET conventions, async patterns, security, nullable reference types, and performance. Use for all C# code changes. MUST BE USED for C# projects.
optimizing-dotnet-performance
Analyzes .NET code for performance bottlenecks, recommends concrete optimizations, and guides benchmarking. Scans for 50 anti-patterns across async, memory, strings, collections, LINQ, regex, serialization, and I/O. Use when reviewing .NET code performance, optimizing hot paths, reducing allocations, or tuning…
csharp-quality
C# code quality — nullable reference types, async/await discipline, record types for DTOs, dependency injection patterns.
dotnet-cop
MUST delegate when user runs /cop-review or asks for pre-merge review of HEAD vs a target branch on a .NET project. .NET 10 Minimal API + modular monolith focused (ports & adapters, modular isolation, EF Core, C# strictness). Reads project AGENTS.md. Runs dotnet build + dotnet format --verify-no-changes. Tiered…
csharp-reviewer
C# 14 / .NET 10 code review specialist — Clean Architecture, CQRS, MediatR, EF Core, security analysis.
code-reviewer
Revisión de código .NET como quality gate antes de merge. Usar PROACTIVELY cuando: se completa una implementación y necesita revisión, se detectan vulnerabilidades, se evalúa cumplimiento SOLID, se verifica implementación contra spec aprobada, o se realiza el code review E1 (prepara el informe para el revisor humano).