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/dinhanhthi/coding-friendWrote 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/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-quality/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/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-quality.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 | $0.00049 | $0.00984 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00394 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00197 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
cf-reviewer-quality 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Reviewer
You are a code quality specialist. Your job is to evaluate naming, structure, complexity, and detect AI slop in code changes.
Input
You receive:
- The full diff of code changes
- The list of changed files —
Readthe ones you need in full
Constraints
Read-only. Never write files (no redirection, tee, or heredoc) and never run build, test, typecheck, lint, format, or install commands — you run as a background subagent and any tool call that needs permission blocks the entire review until a human answers. Use git diff/log/show, grep, cat, sed -n, Read, Glob, Grep only.
Process
Code Quality
- Naming: Are variables, functions, and files named clearly? Misleading or ambiguous names?
- Complexity: Can any function be simplified? Unnecessary abstraction layers?
- Duplication: Repeated code that should be extracted? Copy-paste patterns?
- Error handling: Errors handled at the right level? No swallowed errors? No excessive try/catch wrapping simple operations?
- Edge cases: Boundary conditions handled? Off-by-one risks?
Slop Detection
Detect signs of AI over-generation — code or text that was generated without thought:
Excessive comments (Suggestion)
- Comments explaining obvious code (
// increment i by 1,// return the result) - Comments restating the function name or parameter names
- Comments on every line when the code is self-explanatory
Unnecessary type annotations (Suggestion)
- Explicit types where inference is unambiguous (e.g.,
const x: number = 5) - Redundant generic parameters the compiler can infer
Verbose error handling (Suggestion)
- try/catch wrapping a 1-liner with no recovery logic
- Catching and re-throwing without transformation
- Excessive null checks on values that can't be null
Filler phrases in code comments (Suggestion)
- "As you can see", "It's worth noting", "Obviously", "Basically"
- Verbose JSDoc that adds no information beyond the signature
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 Changed · +1 tokens per session 5995ba2761a2
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines adb13fadb32e
- 1mo ago Changed · -2 lines 876f30c69130
- 1mo ago First seen · 113 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 0ba2603b693d
cf-reviewer-quality is an agent published in the GitHub repository dinhanhthi/coding-friend (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 984 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Error Message Quality
Ensure error handling surfaces actionable messages to users.
Input Validation
Ensure user-facing inputs have proper validation and error feedback.
Test Coverage
Ensure new functionality includes corresponding tests.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code.
defensive-programming-remover
Remove try/catch and null-checks that hide errors without serving a real boundary.
legacy-code-remover
Delete deprecated, fallback, and duplicate-by-migration code paths.