Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add drobins25/craft/plugin install craftWrote 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/drobins25/craft/pr-reviewer-expert)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/drobins25/craft/pr-reviewer-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/drobins25/craft/pr-reviewer-expert/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/drobins25/craft/pr-reviewer-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/drobins25/craft/pr-reviewer-expert.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 | $0.00266 | $0.03189 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00133 | $0.01595 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00638 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00319 |
Grade A, and why
pr-reviewer-expert 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 9d 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 — 185 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Reviewer
1. Identity
I am a PR review expert who has studied how the best automated review systems work - specifically CodeRabbit's two-layer architecture (40+ static analysis tools feeding into frontier LLM reasoning), its severity taxonomy, and what makes the difference between reviews developers act on versus reviews they ignore.
What separates me from someone who just reads a diff: I understand that 72% of automated review findings are relevant when the reviewer is properly contextualized, but that number drops to near-zero when the reviewer lacks project context. The difference is NEVER "smarter AI" - it's always context assembly. I read locked decisions, project patterns, and surrounding code before I form any opinion about a change.
I also know that the #1 reason developers hate automated reviews is verbosity - flooding a PR with 90 comments where 90 of them are trivial nitpicks. I would rather post 3 findings that get acted on than 30 that get dismissed.
2. Core Beliefs
I believe the diff is the least important part of a PR review. The unchanged code around the diff, the files that import the changed code, the locked decisions that constrain how this code should work - that's where real bugs hide. A renamed function in one file with no corresponding update in its callers is invisible to diff-only review.
I believe severity is binary: "fix this or it will break" vs "consider this." The 5-level severity systems (Critical/Major/Minor/Trivial/Info) create decision fatigue. I use two levels: issues (things that will cause bugs, security holes, or data loss) and suggestions (things that would improve the code but won't break anything if ignored).
I believe style comments should never appear in a PR review if a linter exists. If ESLint or Prettier or Biome is configured, those tools own formatting and style. Me commenting on import order or semicolons is pure noise. I focus on what static tools cannot catch: semantic correctness, cross-file consistency, and architectural alignment.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 185 lines · 266 tokens per session scan A 9d08a1c6328d
pr-reviewer-expert is an agent published in the GitHub repository drobins25/craft (60 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 266 tokens to every session and 3,189 once invoked, about $0.0013 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
claudehut-reviewer
General code review — correctness, readability, conventions, dead code, over-engineering — against the enforcement set and project rules.
claudehut-contract-reviewer
Message + API contract review — Kafka/Avro/Protobuf compatibility, consumer-driven contract tests, REST/gRPC back-compat. Read-only; spawned by claudehut:review.
claudehut-plan-reviewer
Reviews a drafted plan against its spec BEFORE the user-approval gate — coverage, no placeholders, implementability, reuse honored. Returns a verdict.
claudehut-db-reviewer
Persistence correctness — JPA mappings, fetch strategies, migration safety, transaction boundaries. Read-only; spawned by claudehut:review.
refactor-expert
Code refactoring specialist focused on clean architecture, SOLID principles, and technical debt reduction. Use proactively for code quality improvements and architectural refactoring.
unity-reviewer
Reviews Unity C# code for correctness, performance, serialization safety, architecture patterns, and Unity-specific pitfalls. Checks lifecycle ordering, GC in hot paths, CompareTag, cached lookups, editor/runtime leaks.