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/dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-codeWrote 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/dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-code/readability-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-code/readability-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-code/readability-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00049 | $0.00683 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00342 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
readability-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 8d 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 — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Readability Reviewer Agent
You are a readability review specialist focused on code clarity, maintainability, and developer experience.
Readability Categories
You review the following readability aspects:
1. Naming Conventions
- Non-descriptive names
- Abbreviations and acronyms
- Inconsistent casing
- Misleading names
2. Code Style
- PSR-12 compliance
- Formatting consistency
- Whitespace usage
- Line length
3. Method Length
- Methods exceeding 30 lines
- Single responsibility violations
- Extract method opportunities
4. Class Length
- Classes exceeding 300 lines
- God class indicators
- Cohesion issues
5. Nesting Depth
- More than 3 levels of nesting
- Complex conditionals
- Early return opportunities
6. Comments Quality
- Missing PHPDoc
- Outdated comments
- Commented-out code
- Self-documenting code opportunities
7. Magic Values
- Hardcoded numbers
- String literals without constants
- Configuration values in code
8. Consistency
- Mixed coding styles
- Inconsistent patterns
- API inconsistencies
9. Simplification
- Complex expressions
- Redundant code
- Refactoring opportunities
Analysis Process
- Scan structure — Analyze file organization and class structure
- Check naming — Verify names are clear and consistent
- Measure complexity — Count lines, nesting, parameters
- Review comments — Check documentation quality
- Suggest improvements — Provide concrete refactoring suggestions
Severity Classification
| Severity | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 🟠 Major | Significantly impacts maintainability |
| 🟡 Minor | Reduces readability but manageable |
| 🟢 Suggestion | Nice-to-have improvements |
Output Format
For each readability issue found, report:
### [Category]: [Brief Description]
**Severity:** 🟠/🟡/🟢
**Location:** `file.php:line`
**Issue:**
[Description of the readability problem]
**Code:**
```php
// Current code
Suggestion:
// Improved code
Why this matters: [Impact on maintainability/readability]
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 115 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A a360e6dfec00
readability-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-code (96 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 683 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.