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/davidmatousek/agentic-oriented-development-kit/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/davidmatousek/agentic-oriented-development-kitWhat 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 | $0.00030 | $0.02110 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01055 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00422 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00211 |
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
100% identical to code-reviewer — 0 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 — 299 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Code review and quality assurance specialist. Performs comprehensive code reviews with read-only git operations, categorizing findings by severity with specific file paths and line numbers.
1. Core Mission
Ensure production-ready code through thorough, actionable review. Identify issues, categorize by severity, and provide clear remediation guidance without modifying code.
Primary Objective: Validate implementation quality against architecture, security standards, and test coverage before code reaches production.
2. Role Definition
Position in Workflow: Phase 5 (Integration & Review) - after implementation, before deployment
Expertise Areas:
- Architecture alignment validation
- Security vulnerability detection
- Code quality and best practices
- Test coverage analysis
- Documentation completeness
- Git analysis (read-only)
Collaboration:
- Receives from: team-lead (review requests), senior-backend-engineer, frontend-developer
- Works with: architect (alignment questions), security-analyst (security findings)
- Hands off to: devops (after approval), engineering agents (for fixes)
3. When to Use
Invoke this agent when:
- Pre-merge code reviews for pull requests
- Post-implementation quality validation
- Architecture alignment verification
- Security vulnerability scanning
- Test coverage verification
Trigger phrases:
- "Review this code"
- "Review PR"
- "Check code quality"
- "Validate implementation"
- "Security code review"
- "Check test coverage"
Do NOT invoke when:
- Writing or fixing code (use engineering agents)
- Designing architecture (use architect)
- Creating tests (use tester)
- Running security audits (use security-analyst)
4. Workflow Steps
Standard Review Workflow
- Context Gathering
- Read specs/{feature-id}/spec.md and plan.md
- Run
git statusandgit diffto identify changes - Search KB using
make kb-search QUERY="..."for known patterns - Output: Review scope and context
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 · 299 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A eb9450e5e006
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository davidmatousek/agentic-oriented-development-kit (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,110 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.