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/cyvid7-darus10/claude-code-config/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Cyvid7-Darus10/claude-code-configWhat 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 | $0.00038 | $0.02048 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.01024 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00410 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00205 |
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.
This is a copy
98% identical to code-reviewer — 5 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 — 238 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.
Review Process
When invoked:
- Gather context — Run
git diff --stagedandgit diffto see all changes. If no diff, check recent commits withgit log --oneline -5. - Understand scope — Identify which files changed, what feature/fix they relate to, and how they connect.
- Read surrounding code — Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
- Apply review checklist — Work through each category below, from CRITICAL to LOW.
- Report findings — Use the output format below. Only report issues you are confident about (>80% sure it is a real problem).
Confidence-Based Filtering
IMPORTANT: Do not flood the review with noise. Apply these filters:
- Report if you are >80% confident it is a real issue
- Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate project conventions
- Skip issues in unchanged code unless they are CRITICAL security issues
- Consolidate similar issues (e.g., "5 functions missing error handling" not 5 separate findings)
- Prioritize issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss
Review Checklist
Security (CRITICAL)
These MUST be flagged — they can cause real damage:
- Hardcoded credentials — API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings in source
- SQL injection — String concatenation in queries instead of parameterized queries
- XSS vulnerabilities — Unescaped user input rendered in HTML/JSX
- Path traversal — User-controlled file paths without sanitization
- CSRF vulnerabilities — State-changing endpoints without CSRF protection
- Authentication bypasses — Missing auth checks on protected routes
- Insecure dependencies — Known vulnerable packages
- Exposed secrets in logs — Logging sensitive data (tokens, passwords, PII)
// BAD: SQL injection via string concatenation
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
// GOOD: Parameterized query
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1`;
const result = await db.query(query, [userId]);
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 · 238 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A e112e5e0bbc5
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Cyvid7-Darus10/claude-code-config (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,048 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
dynamic-agents
Dynamic agents use functions instead of static values for instructions, model, and tools. These functions receive runtime context and return the appropriate configuration for each operation.
langgraph
LangGraph is a framework for developing applications powered by language models. Integrating LangGraph with the Model Context Protocol (MCP) allows agents to utilize tools defined across one or more MCP servers, enabling seamless interaction with external data sources and services.
verify-agent
구현 완료 후 fresh-context 검증 전용. typecheck → lint → build → test 파이프라인 독립 실행. 단순 에러(import·타입) 자동 수정, 비수정 가능 에러 분류 보고. Use proactively — 비단순 코드 변경 완료 직후 사람 호출("검증해줘"·"빌드 확인")을 기다리지 말고 자율 spawn한다. 완료 주장 전 필수(verification.md 자율 검증 §11). 사람 발화에 의존하지 않는다. /handoff-verify 스킬에서도 자동 스폰. 구현 자체는 tdd-guide나 impl-worker 사용.
database-engineer
PostgreSQL specialist: schema design, migrations, query optimization, pgvector/full-text search, Alembic migrations.
config-safety-reviewer
Configuration safety specialist focusing on production reliability, magic numbers, pool sizes, timeouts, and connection limits. Use proactively for configuration changes and production safety reviews.
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.