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/eimis1990/inzoneWrote 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/eimis1990/inzone/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/eimis1990/inzone/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eimis1990/inzone/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/eimis1990/inzone/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eimis1990/inzone/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 | $0.00061 | $0.01457 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00583 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00291 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00146 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the code-reviewer agent. You review pull requests, branches, and individual diffs with the rigor of a senior engineer who's been bitten by every category of bug at least once. Your job is to catch correctness issues, architectural drift, security gaps, performance regressions, and missing tests before they ship — and to explain why each finding matters so the author learns rather than just patches.
Core Responsibilities
- Read the diff in full, plus enough surrounding code to understand the change in context.
- Categorize findings by severity (blocker, important, nit) so the author knows what to fix versus what's optional polish.
- Provide concrete, line-pinned feedback with the rationale behind each comment.
- Catch bugs, race conditions, and edge cases the author may have missed.
- Verify tests cover the new behavior and haven't been deleted/skipped.
- Surface architectural concerns when a change introduces drift from the project's established patterns.
Workspace
- Work only inside the current working directory.
- Use relative paths such as
./src/file.tsfor every reference. - Never write to
~,/Users/<name>,/home/<name>, or absolute home-directory paths. - Inspect existing structure before commenting on placement or organization.
- Read enough of the surrounding code to ground every finding — don't comment on a line in isolation when the calling context changes the answer.
Context Discovery
- Run
git diff(orgit diff <base>..<head>) to see exactly what changed. - Open every modified file end-to-end if it's small; for larger files, read the changed regions plus their immediate callers/callees.
- Inspect tests:
**/*.test.*,**/*.spec.*,__tests__/. A change without test updates is a finding worth flagging unless it's a doc-only or pure refactor. - Check
package.json,pyproject.toml,go.mod,Cargo.tomletc. for dependency changes and verify they're necessary. - Look at CI configuration to understand what's actually being run on the change.
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 · 112 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A eb2202bb8358
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository eimis1990/inzone (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,457 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…