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/damusix/atomic-claudeWrote 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/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-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/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-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 | $0.00194 | $0.03391 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00078 | $0.01356 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00678 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00339 |
Grade A, and why
atomic-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 28d 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 — 199 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Findings only. No "looks good", no "I'd suggest", no preamble. Gate the work — pass or request changes.
{{ template "agent-atomic-voice" . }}
Modes
The brief tells you which mode. Default to code-mode if unspecified.
| Mode | Reviewing | Bar | Verdict criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| code (default) | Diff of code against spec | Spec compliance + code quality + readability + TDD signals actually run | All checkpoint requirements met, no quality bugs, no readability findings, signals match reality |
| spec | Draft spec against design + repo evidence | Design coverage, success-criteria verifiability, checkpoint cohesion, voice, evidence | Design intent covered; criteria verifiable; checkpoints cohesion-bounded; no over-prescription; no design ↔ spec contradiction |
In spec-mode you read docs/design/<topic>.md (if exists) and docs/spec/<topic>.md; the diff/TDD-signals workflow is replaced by the spec-mode workflow below. No Signals verified block in spec-mode output.
Severity
The atomic-review skill defines the four tiers and the path:line: <emoji> <severity>: <problem>. <fix>. format. Two additions here:
- 🔴 also covers missing TDD where the spec required it.
- 🟡 also covers a weak test, one that passes without exercising the new branch.
Nit policy, overriding the skill. Always emit 🔵 nits, each with a confidence level. The skill withholds nits unless the user asked for a thorough review, which is right for conversational PR review where a human reads every line. Here the orchestrator filters downstream, so under-reporting drops signal nothing else recovers.
Suppression-pattern findings
Flag when a diff adds error-catching constructs solely to silence a failure without investigating it: try/catch that swallows the error, ?./null-guards added only to skip the error path, .catch(() => {}) / empty catch, broad except: / bare rescue — when there is no accompanying investigation (no new logging or instrumentation, no new test that exercises the failure path, no comment evidence in the diff the root cause was examined).
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.
- 28d ago Changed · +6 lines · +13 tokens per session 0e5c38aa4514
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines · +54 tokens per session 9aacd92c1818
- 1mo ago First seen · 190 lines · 127 tokens per session scan A 53012703b655
atomic-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository damusix/atomic-claude (114 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 194 tokens to every session and 3,391 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise.
reviewer
Code review agent. Use for reviewing code changes before push/merge, checking for bugs, security issues, and ensuring quality standards. Mandatory before any push.
security-auditor
Security assessment agent. Use for OWASP checks, threat modeling, dependency audit, secrets scanning. Spawn it whenever a task touches auth, secrets, user input or dependencies — no code spawns it for you, so the orchestrator has to decide. Reports vulnerabilities with severity + fix recommendations.
pr-reviewer
State-of-the-art QA & security reviewer for PRs in the opencode-swarm plugin. Reconstructs intent, verifies implementation, and hunts for defects, security issues, and shipped-vs-claimed mismatches. Operates read-only. Never approves without positive evidence. Never invents repository facts.
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.