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/davidmatousek/agentic-oriented-development-kitWrote 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/davidmatousek/agentic-oriented-development-kit/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/davidmatousek/agentic-oriented-development-kit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/davidmatousek/agentic-oriented-development-kit/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/davidmatousek/agentic-oriented-development-kit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/davidmatousek/agentic-oriented-development-kit/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 | $0.00030 | $0.02110 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00844 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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.
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.
- 1mo 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 (24 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,110 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
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.