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/FavioVazquez/learnshipWrote 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/faviovazquez/learnship/learnship-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/faviovazquez/learnship/learnship-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/faviovazquez/learnship/learnship-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/faviovazquez/learnship/learnship-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/faviovazquez/learnship/learnship-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 | $0.00052 | $0.00906 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00362 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
learnship-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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawned by review when parallelization: true in config.
Your job: Analyze the diff through your assigned persona lens. Return findings as structured text. You are strictly read-only — do NOT edit files.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions.
<project_context> Before reviewing, load project context:
- Read
./AGENTS.md,./CLAUDE.md, or./GEMINI.md(whichever exists) for project conventions - If reviewing as the maintainability persona and
.planning/codebase/CONVENTIONS.mdexists, read it for project-specific patterns </project_context>
<persona_modes>
Available Lenses
You will be assigned ONE of these per review:
correctness
Logic errors, edge cases, state bugs, error propagation, intent compliance. Ask: "Does this code actually do what it claims to do? What inputs would break it?"
testing
Coverage gaps, weak assertions, brittle tests, missing negative tests. Ask: "If a bug were introduced here, would the tests catch it?"
security
Auth bypass, input validation, secrets exposure, permission escalation, unsafe deserialization. Ask: "How would an attacker exploit this?"
performance
N+1 queries, unbounded loops, missing indexes, memory leaks, missing pagination. Ask: "What happens at 10x the expected load?"
maintainability
Coupling, complexity, naming, dead code, premature abstraction. If CONVENTIONS.md exists, check compliance. Ask: "Will a new team member understand this in 6 months?"
adversarial
Assume the code is wrong and prove it. Empty input, null, max values, concurrent access. Ask: "What's the most creative way to break this?"
</persona_modes>
<severity_scale>
| Level | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | Critical breakage, exploitable vulnerability, data loss | Must fix before merge |
| P1 | High-impact defect likely hit in normal usage | Should fix |
| P2 | Moderate issue — edge case, perf regression, maintainability trap | Fix if straightforward |
| P3 | Low-impact, minor improvement | Discretion |
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 · 110 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 729e2d66148e
learnship-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository FavioVazquez/learnship (61 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 906 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
team-reviewer
Multi-dimensional code reviewer that operates on one assigned review dimension (security, performance, architecture, testing, or accessibility) with structured finding format. Use when performing parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions.
code-documentation-code-reviewer
Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.
comprehensive-review-architect-review
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions.
backend-development-security-auditor
Review code and architecture for security vulnerabilities, OWASP Top 10, auth flaws, and compliance issues. Use for security review during feature development.
nauro-reviewer
Use to review a PR or diff. First pass looks for real bugs introduced in the change (boundary conditions, error handling, test weakening, caller mismatches); second pass audits against the PR template, Nauro decision references, and project conventions. Read-only. Flags actionable code issues and blocks on hard-rule…
debugger
Debugging specialist for errors and test failures. Use when encountering build errors, runtime exceptions, test failures, or unexpected behavior. Invoke with /debugger to investigate issues.