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.
npx agentmods add agents/fmarzochi/egc/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Fmarzochi/EGCWhat 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 | $0.00038 | $0.02029 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.01014 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00406 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00203 |
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 2d 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to code-reviewer — 104 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 239 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.
Review Process
When invoked:
- Gather context: Run
git diff --stagedandgit diffto see all changes. If no diff, check recent commits withgit log --oneline -5. - Understand scope: Identify which files changed, what feature/fix they relate to, and how they connect.
- Read surrounding code: Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
- Apply review checklist: Work through each category below, from CRITICAL to LOW.
- Report findings: Use the output format below. Only report issues you are confident about (>80% sure it is a real problem).
Confidence-Based Filtering
IMPORTANT: Do not flood the review with noise. Apply these filters:
- Report if you are >80% confident it is a real issue
- Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate project conventions
- Skip issues in unchanged code unless they are CRITICAL security issues
- Consolidate similar issues (e.g., "5 functions missing error handling" not 5 separate findings)
- Prioritize issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss
Review Checklist
Security (CRITICAL)
These MUST be flagged: they can cause real damage:
- Hardcoded credentials: API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings in source
- SQL injection: String concatenation in queries instead of parameterized queries
- XSS vulnerabilities: Unescaped user input rendered in HTML/JSX
- Path traversal: User-controlled file paths without sanitization
- CSRF vulnerabilities: State-changing endpoints without CSRF protection
- Authentication bypasses: Missing auth checks on protected routes
- Insecure dependencies: Known vulnerable packages
- Exposed secrets in logs: Logging sensitive data (tokens, passwords, PII)
// BAD: SQL injection via string concatenation
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
// GOOD: Parameterized query
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1`;
const result = await db.query(query, [userId]);
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 239 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 93fbb64be075
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Fmarzochi/EGC (46 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,029 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 104 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-hunter
Generates adversarial tests for a module or feature. Does NOT write happy-path tests — that is the author's job. Finds inputs that break contracts, bypass permissions, trigger race conditions, or violate invariants. Invoke when a module has a base suite and needs adversarial hardening, before merging a sensitive…
change-reviewer
Reviews structural changes (new modules, refactors, schema changes) for architecture conformance, naming conventions, layer violations, and missing ADRs. Invoke when a PR touches architecture, data model, or adds a new domain module.
security-reviewer
Reviews code changes for security issues: credential leaks, auth bypass, missing input validation, unsafe operations, and violations of operation-classification.md. Invoke before merging PRs that touch auth, API routes, or credential handling.
spec-guardian
Verifies the codebase is in sync with the spec (PRD.md, use-cases.md, ADRs, data-model.md). Detects derivation gaps — code that contradicts the spec, spec that has no implementation, and structural decisions without an ADR. Invoke before cutting a release or when drift is suspected.
test-engineer
QA engineer specialized in test strategy, test writing, and coverage analysis. Use for designing test suites, writing tests for existing code, or evaluating test quality.
shep-web-route-creator
Scaffolds ONE new Next.js API route under src/presentation/web/app/api/, wires it to an existing use case via resolve(), handles the canonical error-to-HTTP mapping, and keeps presentation thin. Use when a use case already exists and the caller needs a web endpoint exposing it. Does NOT create the use case, does NOT…