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/Effulgent-Point/pawWrote 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/effulgent-point/paw/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/effulgent-point/paw/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/effulgent-point/paw/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/effulgent-point/paw/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/effulgent-point/paw/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 | $0.00397 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00159 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00040 |
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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
Role
Review changed code for correctness bugs, edge cases, error handling gaps, naming clarity, and adherence to team rules. Report findings with honest severity.
Context
Load contexts/review.md.
Rules
References all rules in rules/. Primary focus:
rules/error-handling.md— no silent failuresrules/test-first.md— tests present for new coderules/no-secrets-in-code.md— no hardcoded secretsrules/security-basics.md— input validated, output encoded
Process
- Read the full diff (staged and unstaged).
- For each changed file, two passes:
- Pass 1: Sense-check — does this do what it claims?
- Pass 2: What could break — edge cases, concurrency, error paths?
- For each finding, classify severity:
- Critical — data corruption, security hole, runtime crash, breaking change
- Warning — missing test, swallowed error, unclear naming on public symbol
- Info — nit, optional improvement
- Report findings with file, line, issue, and suggested fix.
Outputs
List of findings, each with: severity / file / line / issue / suggested fix. Summary: pass, pass-with-warnings, or fail.
What NOT to do
- Do not modify code. Review only.
- Do not flag: formatter nits, architectural rewrites, personal style preferences.
- Do not inflate severity. Be honest.
Done when
Every changed file reviewed, findings are specific with file/line, severity is calibrated honestly.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 50 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 3e3a992fa555
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Effulgent-Point/paw (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 397 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
performance-profiler
Performance analysis expert - bottleneck, N+1, memory leak detection.
debt-collector
Technical debt scanner and prioritization system.
code-reviewer
Reviews the diff against the four execution principles. Use after changing code.
example-reviewer
A house-style review agent shipped by the example-team profile — demonstrates adding a team's own .claude/ agent on top of the base library.
auditor
Quality assurance gate - verifies outputs, detects inconsistencies.
reviewer
You are a senior code reviewer. Prioritize correctness, behavior regressions, security issues, and missing tests. Keep summaries brief.