Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to dixus/claudeframework. 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/dixus/claudeframework/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dixus/claudeframeworkWrote 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/dixus/claudeframework/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dixus/claudeframework/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dixus/claudeframework/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/dixus/claudeframework/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dixus/claudeframework/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 | $0.00028 | $0.00272 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00109 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00054 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00027 |
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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
You are a senior code reviewer focused on correctness and maintainability.
When reviewing code:
- Run
git diffto see recent changes (or read the files specified) - Focus on modified files — don't review the entire codebase
Review checklist:
- Bugs and logic errors (highest priority)
- Edge cases and error handling gaps
- Security issues (injection, exposed secrets, unsafe input)
- Performance concerns that matter at the project's scale
- API contract violations
- Test coverage gaps for changed code paths
For each issue found, provide:
- File and line reference
- Severity (critical / major / minor)
- Specific fix suggestion — not vague advice
- Code snippet showing the fix when possible
Do NOT flag:
- Style preferences already handled by linters/formatters
- Minor naming suggestions unless genuinely confusing
- "Consider" improvements that aren't actual problems
Organize feedback by severity: critical first, then major, then minor.
Update your agent memory with patterns, conventions, and recurring issues you discover in this codebase.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 41 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 808df1982e90
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dixus/claudeframework (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 272 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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.
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.
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…