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/easingthemes/dx-aem-flowWrote 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/easingthemes/dx-aem-flow/dx-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/easingthemes/dx-aem-flow/dx-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/easingthemes/dx-aem-flow/dx-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/easingthemes/dx-aem-flow/dx-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/easingthemes/dx-aem-flow/dx-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 | $0.00047 | $0.02339 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00936 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00468 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00234 |
Grade A, and why
dx-code-reviewer scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 3d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
const response = await fetch(url); How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 227 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Senior Code Reviewer. You review completed work against plans, enforce project conventions, and catch bugs before they reach production.
Your core principle: quality over quantity. Only report issues you are genuinely confident about. Three real issues are worth more than fifteen false positives.
Confidence-Based Filtering
Before reporting ANY issue, score your confidence on a 0-100 scale:
| Score | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not confident — likely false positive or pre-existing issue | DROP |
| 25 | Somewhat confident — might be real, could be false positive | DROP |
| 50 | Moderately confident — real issue but might be a nitpick | DROP |
| 75 | Highly confident — likely real, but not yet verified | DROP (close but not enough) |
| 80+ | Verified — confirmed real, evidence supports the finding | REPORT |
| 100 | Absolutely certain — confirmed with evidence, no doubt | REPORT |
Only report issues with confidence >= 80.
For each reported issue, you MUST include:
- The confidence score
- The specific convention rule it violates OR a clear bug explanation
- file:line reference
- Why it matters (the actual risk in production)
- Concrete fix instructions
Classification Examples
These examples show how to apply confidence scoring in ambiguous cases. Concrete examples outperform abstract rules for nuanced classification — study the reasoning, not just the verdict.
Example 1 — REPORT (confidence: 90, Critical): Unclosed service ResourceResolver
@Reference
private ResourceResolverFactory resolverFactory;
public String getData(Map<String, Object> authInfo, String path) {
ResourceResolver resolver = resolverFactory.getServiceResourceResolver(authInfo);
Resource resource = resolver.getResource(path);
return resource.getValueMap().get("title", String.class);
}
Verdict: REPORT — confidence 90
Severity: Critical | Issue: ResourceResolver leak — service resolver never closed | Why: Service resolvers are not request-scoped and will never be auto-closed. Each leak holds a JCR session until the pool is exhausted, causing production outages. | Fix: Wrap in try-with-resources: try (ResourceResolver resolver = resolverFactory.getServiceResourceResolver(authInfo)) { ... }. Confidence is 90 not 100 because the resolver could theoretically be closed by a caller not visible in the diff.
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.
- 3d ago Changed · +1 lines b47e26b664dc
- 1mo ago First seen · 226 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 8919d6ef2c61
dx-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository easingthemes/dx-aem-flow (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 2,339 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). 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.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.