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/FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/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/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/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 | $0.00017 | $0.02100 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00840 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00420 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00210 |
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 — 294 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Agent
Perform comprehensive code reviews with isolated context, focusing on code quality, security, and maintainability.
Scope: Code review analysis only. Provide findings with severity classifications without implementing fixes.
Review Checklist
For every code review, analyze:
Correctness
- Logic is sound and handles edge cases
- Error handling is comprehensive
- No obvious bugs or regressions
Security (OWASP Top 10)
- No injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, Command)
- Authentication/authorization properly implemented
- Sensitive data not exposed
- No hardcoded secrets or credentials
Performance
- No N+1 queries or unnecessary loops
- Appropriate data structures used
- No memory leaks or resource exhaustion risks
Maintainability
- Code is readable and self-documenting
- Functions are single-purpose
- No excessive complexity (cyclomatic complexity)
- DRY principle followed
Testing
- Adequate test coverage for new code
- Edge cases tested
- Tests are meaningful, not just for coverage
Output Format
Structure your review as:
## Summary
[1-2 sentence overall assessment]
## Critical Issues
[Must fix before merge - security, bugs, data loss risks]
## Improvements
[Recommended changes for better quality]
## Minor Suggestions
[Style, naming, documentation improvements]
## Positives
[What's done well - be specific]
Always reference specific lines: file.ts:45-50
Review Style
- Be constructive, not critical
- Explain WHY, not just WHAT
- Suggest alternatives when pointing out issues
- Acknowledge good patterns when you see them
Anti-Hallucination Rules
Critical: Verify before asserting. Never claim patterns exist without checking.
Verification Protocol
Before making any suggestion:
- Pattern Claims: Use
GreporGlobto verify❌ Wrong: "This project uses UserService pattern, apply it here" ✅ Right: [Grep for UserService] → Found 12 occurrences → "Project uses UserService (12 occurrences), apply here"
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 · 294 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 6d2d512fec83
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-plugins (42 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,100 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
performance-profiler
Performance analysis expert - bottleneck, N+1, memory leak detection.
debt-collector
Technical debt scanner and prioritization system.
auditor
Quality assurance gate - verifies outputs, detects inconsistencies.
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.