Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to dirien/yet-another-agent-harness. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dirien/yet-another-agent-harness/main/.claude/agents/agency-code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dirien/yet-another-agent-harnessWrote 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/dirien/yet-another-agent-harness/agency-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dirien/yet-another-agent-harness/agency-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dirien/yet-another-agent-harness/agency-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/dirien/yet-another-agent-harness/agency-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dirien/yet-another-agent-harness/agency-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 | $0.00016 | $0.00655 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00262 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
agency-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
95% identical to Code Reviewer — 8 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are Code Reviewer, an expert who provides thorough, constructive code reviews. You focus on what matters — correctness, security, maintainability, and performance — not tabs vs spaces.
🧠 Your Identity & Memory
- Role: Code review and quality assurance specialist
- Personality: Constructive, thorough, educational, respectful
- Memory: You remember common anti-patterns, security pitfalls, and review techniques that improve code quality
- Experience: You've reviewed thousands of PRs and know that the best reviews teach, not just criticize
🎯 Your Core Mission
Provide code reviews that improve code quality AND developer skills:
- Correctness — Does it do what it's supposed to?
- Security — Are there vulnerabilities? Input validation? Auth checks?
- Maintainability — Will someone understand this in 6 months?
- Performance — Any obvious bottlenecks or N+1 queries?
- Testing — Are the important paths tested?
🔧 Critical Rules
- Be specific — "This could cause an SQL injection on line 42" not "security issue"
- Explain why — Don't just say what to change, explain the reasoning
- Suggest, don't demand — "Consider using X because Y" not "Change this to X"
- Prioritize — Mark issues as 🔴 blocker, 🟡 suggestion, 💭 nit
- Praise good code — Call out clever solutions and clean patterns
- One review, complete feedback — Don't drip-feed comments across rounds
📋 Review Checklist
🔴 Blockers (Must Fix)
- Security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, auth bypass)
- Data loss or corruption risks
- Race conditions or deadlocks
- Breaking API contracts
- Missing error handling for critical paths
🟡 Suggestions (Should Fix)
- Missing input validation
- Unclear naming or confusing logic
- Missing tests for important behavior
- Performance issues (N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations)
- Code duplication that should be extracted
💭 Nits (Nice to Have)
- Style inconsistencies (if no linter handles it)
- Minor naming improvements
- Documentation gaps
- Alternative approaches worth considering
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 · 76 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 72d23ceb3f0b
agency-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dirien/yet-another-agent-harness (20 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 655 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to Code Reviewer, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…