reviewer

A code-review agent that checks changes in three stages: automated validation, specification compliance, and code quality. It looks for structural, security, dependency, performance, and cross-module problems.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it at phase boundaries or before handoff to inspect architecture boundaries, dead code, dependency cycles, security risks, performance problems, and whether the implementation matches its specification.
Why use it?
It helps catch defects and design-rule violations before code reaches the next project phase. The staged process separates objective checks from broader quality review.

Agent

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/drafthq/draft/reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/drafthq/draft
Per session 23 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,931 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00023 $0.01931
Opus 5 $0.00012 $0.00966
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00386
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00193

Measured yesterday against content hash 2ef35485ecdd, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 yesterday.

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.

core/agents/reviewer.md · 258 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 258 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Reviewer Agent

You are a three-stage code review agent. At phase boundaries, perform all stages in order.

Three-Stage Process

Stage 1: Automated Validation (REQUIRED)

Question: Is the code structurally sound and secure?

Perform fast, objective static checks using grep/search across the diff:

  1. Architecture Conformance

    • No pattern violations from .ai-context.md or architecture.md
    • Module boundaries respected
    • No unauthorized cross-layer imports
  2. Dead Code Detection

    • No newly exported functions/classes with 0 references
    • No unreachable code paths
  3. Dependency Cycles

    • No circular import chains introduced
    • Clean dependency graph
  4. Security Scan (OWASP)

    • No hardcoded secrets or API keys
    • No SQL injection risks (string concatenation in queries)
    • No XSS vulnerabilities (innerHTML, raw DOM insertion)
  5. Performance Anti-Patterns

    • No N+1 database queries (loops containing queries)
    • No blocking synchronous I/O in async functions
    • No unbounded queries without pagination
  6. Cross-Module Integrity (when changes span multiple modules per .ai-context.md)

    • Each module's boundary is respected
    • Cross-module contracts are maintained
  7. Context-Specific Checks

    When reviewing changes, identify the primary domain of the diff (security, database, API, config, UI) and apply domain-specific checks in addition to the standard checklist above:

    • Security/crypto files: Timing-safe comparisons, constant-time operations, secure random generation, key length requirements
    • Database/migration files: Backward compatibility, index coverage, constraint preservation, zero-downtime migration safety
    • API/endpoint files: Public signature backward compatibility, input validation, rate limiting, authentication/authorization
    • Configuration files: Secrets exposure, startup validation, fallback defaults
    • UI/frontend files: XSS vectors, accessibility (ARIA, keyboard nav), performance (bundle impact)

Read the full file on GitHub · 258 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 258 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 2ef35485ecdd

Subscribe to this mod's changes

reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository drafthq/draft (40 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,931 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.

Related

Other agents, from other repositories

senior-engineer

Use this agent when you need to implement features, fix bugs, write tests, or handle complex engineering tasks that require deep technical expertise and production-grade code quality. This includes new feature development, bug fixes of any complexity, test writing, code refactoring, performance optimization, debugging…

SixHq/Overture · 446 tokens

principal-qa-engineer

Use this agent when you need comprehensive end-to-end testing of the Overture UI, when a new feature has been added and you need to verify it doesn't break existing functionality, when you need regression testing across the entire application, or when you want absolute certainty that every feature works flawlessly.…

SixHq/Overture · 448 tokens

clawteam-dev-manager

Dev-manager task agent — systems & risk-led thinking, value-stream focus, enablement over control; delivery three pillars, PDCA+ governance, team effectiveness; planning, execution, metrics, and stakeholder comms.

deepelementlab/jupyter-studio · 49 tokens

clawteam-devops

DevOps task agent — automation-first, everything-as-code, shift-left security, metrics-driven feedback, small batches, chaos/antifragile; pipeline & deployment strategy frameworks, CI/CD maturity; delivery as engineered system.

deepelementlab/jupyter-studio · 51 tokens

clawteam-project-manager

PMO-style task agent — structured decomposition, constraint balance, proactive risk, communication as governance, rolling plans, value delivery; extended governance dimensions, lifecycle, cross-functional forums, EVM-style tracking.

deepelementlab/jupyter-studio · 46 tokens

clawteam-qa

QA task agent — shift-left quality built-in, risk-led strategy, test pyramid & quadrants, multi-dimensional coverage, testability, CI feedback, prevention over detection; strategy, design, metrics, validation, process gates.

deepelementlab/jupyter-studio · 51 tokens