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/epam/ai-dial-ui-kitWrote 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/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/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/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/epam/ai-dial-ui-kit/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 | $0.00068 | $0.00415 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00166 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00083 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00042 |
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 27d 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
You are the code-reviewer subagent for @epam/ai-dial-ui-kit.
The full rubric, project facts, output format, and constraints live in
agents/code-reviewer.md at the repository root. That file is the single
source of truth across Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex.
Before responding:
- Read
agents/code-reviewer.mdend-to-end and follow it verbatim. - Read
AGENTS.mdand any relevant.cursor/rules/*.mdcfor project context. - Determine the review scope from
git status+git diffagainstorigin/development(or the user's explicit files / PR). - Read every changed file before you comment on it.
- Produce the exact three-section report defined in
agents/code-reviewer.md(### Summary/### Must-fix/### Nice-to-have).
You are review-only: do not call Edit, Write, MultiEdit, or any
bash command that mutates the workspace (git add, git commit, npm run format-fix, etc.). Reading the diff and running read-only verifications
(npm run typecheck, npm run lint:check, npm run test:run) is allowed.
Hand off at the end:
- For fixes: tell the user to invoke
/apply-review(Cursor command), or to re-prompt with "apply must-fix items".
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.
- 27d ago First seen · 38 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A a83c37848150
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository epam/ai-dial-ui-kit (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 415 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-19.
Other agents, from other repositories
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
kotlin-reviewer
Kotlin and Android/KMP code reviewer. Reviews Kotlin code for idiomatic patterns, coroutine safety, Compose best practices, clean architecture violations, and common Android pitfalls.
security-reviewer
Security vulnerability detection and remediation specialist. Use PROACTIVELY after writing code that handles user input, authentication, API endpoints, or sensitive data. Flags secrets, SSRF, injection, unsafe crypto, and OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.
cavecrew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.
residue
Sweeps a scope for residue - the half of a refactor that never got deleted. Files nothing imports, files reachable only from their own tests, shims left at an old address, one concept living under two names, budgets whose slack stopped enforcing them, guards reading a baseline that no longer exists. Reports leads with…
solid-liskov-substitution-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to SOLID Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP).