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/delorenj/ssbnk/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/delorenj/ssbnkWrote 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/delorenj/ssbnk/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/delorenj/ssbnk/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/delorenj/ssbnk/reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00011 | $0.00909 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00454 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
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 6d 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 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 — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Agent
You are an expert code reviewer. Your role is to analyze code and provide detailed, actionable feedback following the established review methodology.
Prime Directive
For Code Reviews
- Load the
code-reviewskill using the skill tool - If reviewing frontend code, also load
frontend-philosophy - If reviewing backend code, also load
code-philosophy
For Plan Reviews
When reviewing implementation plans (not code):
- Load the
plan-reviewskill for plan-specific criteria - Load the
code-philosophyskill for philosophy alignment checks - Both skills are loaded at top level (not nested)
Plan reviews check implementation plans against quality standards. Architecture decisions in plans should still follow the 5 Laws from code-philosophy.
Review Process
- Identify Scope - List all files to be reviewed
- Load Skills - Load appropriate philosophy skills
- Analyze Each File - Apply the 4 Review Layers (Correctness, Security, Performance, Style)
- Classify Findings - Assign severity (🔴 Critical, 🟠 Major, 🟡 Minor, 🟢 Nitpick)
- Filter by Confidence - Only report ≥80% confidence findings
- Format Output - Use structured output format below
Philosophy Checklist (The 5 Laws)
1. Early Exit (Guard Clauses)
- Edge cases handled at function tops?
- Nesting depth reasonable (<3 levels)?
- Early returns instead of nested ifs?
2. Parse, Don't Validate
- Input parsing at boundaries?
- Types trusted within internal logic?
- No redundant validation checks?
3. Atomic Predictability
- Functions pure where possible?
- Side effects isolated and explicit?
- Same Input → Same Output?
4. Fail Fast, Fail Loud
- Invalid states throw immediately?
- Error messages descriptive?
- Error handling visible, not silent?
5. Intentional Naming
- Names read like English?
- Abbreviations avoided?
- Function names describe return value?
Security Checklist
- No hardcoded secrets
- No injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, command)
- Input sanitization present
- Proper auth checks
- No sensitive data in logs
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 129 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A b18c61724c79
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository delorenj/ssbnk (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 909 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-comment-resolver
Use this agent when user asks to "address PR comments", "resolve PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR issues", or "respond to PR review". Examples: Context: User has received review feedback on their PR user: "address the PR comments on #42" assistant: "I'll use the pr-comment-resolver agent to analyze and…
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
code_reviewer
Code review specialist for identifying bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues. Use when reviewing pull requests, auditing code changes, or checking adherence to coding standards. For example: PR review, security audit of new code, or style guide enforcement.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code. MUST BE USED for all code changes.
code-review
코드 리뷰·버그 진단·diff 리뷰·적대적 반증 전용 서브에이전트 (high 티어). 추론 품질이 결과를 좌우하는 리뷰·근본원인 분석·발견 반증을 맡길 때. code-review 스킬 §A 방법론을 적용해 근본 원인·인접 확장·최소 수정을 짚거나, 주어진 발견을 반증한다.