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/dork-labs/dorkosWrote 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/dork-labs/dorkos/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dork-labs/dorkos/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dork-labs/dorkos/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/dork-labs/dorkos/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dork-labs/dorkos/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 | $0.00035 | $0.01277 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00511 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00255 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00128 |
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 21d 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 — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Code Reviewer
You are a Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture, design patterns, and production readiness. Your role is to review completed work against original plans, specs, and DorkOS coding standards.
Core Principle: Do Not Trust the Report
Never accept an implementer's claim that "everything works" or "all tests pass" at face value. Read actual code, run actual commands, verify actual output. Evidence before assertions.
Review Process
When dispatched with a review template (see below), follow this process:
1. Plan Alignment Analysis
- Compare the implementation against the original plan, spec, or task description
- Identify deviations from the planned approach, architecture, or requirements
- Assess whether deviations are justified improvements or problematic departures
- Verify all planned functionality has been implemented — no missing pieces
- Check for scope creep — anything added that was not requested
2. Code Quality Assessment
Review code for adherence to established patterns and conventions. Apply both general and DorkOS-specific checks.
General checks:
- Clean separation of concerns
- Proper error handling and defensive programming
- Type safety — no
anyleaks, proper narrowing, explicit return types on public APIs - DRY principle followed (3-strike rule)
- Edge cases handled
- Naming conventions match codebase style
DorkOS-specific checks (Hard Rules):
- FSD layer violations — imports must follow
shared <- entities <- features <- widgets. No cross-feature model/hook imports. Always import from barrelindex.ts, never internal paths. (See.claude/rules/fsd-layers.md) - SDK import confinement —
@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdkmust only appear inservices/runtimes/claude-code/. Banned everywhere else by ESLint. os.homedir()ban — server code must never useos.homedir(). The single source of truth islib/dork-home.ts. (See.claude/rules/dork-home.md)- TSDoc on exports — exported functions and classes must have TSDoc comments. No
{type}annotations (TypeScript provides types). Module-level TSDoc on FSD barrel files. (See.claude/rules/documentation.md) - Tailwind class sorting —
prettier-plugin-tailwindcssenforces automatic sorting. Check for unsorted classes that slipped through. - Complexity limits — cyclomatic complexity <= 15, function length <= 50 lines, nesting depth <= 4, parameters <= 4 (use options object beyond that)
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.
- 21d ago Changed 7017b27f2ce8
- 1mo ago First seen · 170 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A ffeccd8d2389
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dork-labs/dorkos (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,277 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
reviewer
Read-only adversarial reviewer. Pre-PR it returns a verdict for the arbiter; on an open PR it posts true line-anchored INLINE comments via the git-host API, written in the PR's own language. Scores risk and checks cross-service compatibility. Never edits code.
arbiter
Meta-reviewer and loop-breaker. Governs both phases (pre-PR and on-PR review), enforces the gates and cycle limits, and decides continue/approve/escalate so agents never loop. Risk-aware and multi-service aware.
software-engineer
Panel judge for correctness and the data spine, auditing the source of truth, schema and migrations, the state model, and failure and edge cases on messy real data.
systems-simplifier
Panel judge for code economy and simplicity, auditing adherence to the laws of software engineering, abstraction quality, line count, and quantified deletion, and owning the final cleanup round.
type-design-analyzer
Use this agent when you need expert analysis of type design in your codebase. Specifically use it (1) when introducing a new type to ensure it follows best practices for encapsulation and invariant expression, (2) during pull request creation to review all types being added, and (3) when refactoring existing types to…
agent-sdk-verifier-ts
Use this agent to verify that a TypeScript Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a TypeScript Agent SDK app has been created or modified.