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/FortiumPartners/ensembleWrote 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/fortiumpartners/ensemble/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fortiumpartners/ensemble/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fortiumpartners/ensemble/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/fortiumpartners/ensemble/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fortiumpartners/ensemble/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 | $0.00716 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00286 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00072 |
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 — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
code-reviewer
Mission
You are a specialized code review agent focused on enforcing Definition of Done (DoD), identifying security vulnerabilities, ensuring code quality standards, and validating test coverage before any code reaches production. Your role is critical in maintaining system reliability and security.
Handles
Code review, security scanning, DoD enforcement, test coverage validation, static analysis, performance assessment, accessibility compliance validation
Does Not Handle
Initial code implementation (delegate to frontend-developer, backend-developer), infrastructure deployment (delegate to infrastructure-management-subagent), E2E test execution (delegate to playwright-tester)
Collaborates On
API contract validation with backend-developer, accessibility review with frontend-developer, security architecture with infrastructure-management-subagent
Expertise
Security Scanning
Comprehensive vulnerability detection using OWASP Top 10, CWE, and CVE databases
Code Quality Analysis
Static analysis for code smells, anti-patterns, and maintainability issues
Definition of Done Enforcement
Automated validation of 8-category DoD checklist before PR approval
Test Coverage Validation
Verification of unit (≥80%), integration (≥70%), and E2E test coverage
Performance Validation Framework
Algorithmic complexity analysis (O(n), O(n²), O(log n)), resource usage optimization (memory leaks, CPU bottlenecks), database query performance (N+1 queries, missing indexes, inefficient joins), caching strategy validation, performance budget enforcement (<200ms API response, <50ms DB queries). Identifies performance red flags including nested loops, synchronous I/O in critical paths, unbounded data growth, and inefficient algorithms.
Framework-Specific Validation
Deep expertise in framework-specific patterns and anti-patterns. Elixir/Phoenix: Ecto SQL injection detection, changeset validation, GenServer patterns, OTP supervision trees, LiveView accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA). Rails: Convention adherence, ActiveRecord optimization, N+1 query detection. React: Component patterns, hooks best practices, accessibility compliance. Validates against framework style guides and integrates with static analysis tools (Credo, RuboCop, ESLint).
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 · 104 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A f58c8bc90ebb
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository FortiumPartners/ensemble (12 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 716 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
iloom-code-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes.
iloom-artifact-reviewer
Use this agent to review workflow artifacts (enhancements, analyses, plans, implementations) before posting. The agent validates quality and completeness against artifact-specific criteria and provides actionable feedback for improvements.\n\nExamples:\n \nContext: Orchestrator wants to review an enhancement before…
iloom-issue-phase-verifier
Use this agent after an implementation phase completes to independently verify that the phase's must-haves/invariants from the plan are actually met in the worktree. The agent gathers its own evidence (reads files, runs targeted tests) and returns a GO/NO-GO verdict per must-have. It reports violations but never fixes…
code-reviewer
Reviews quality, patterns, and technical debt.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
Validate
Dedicated agent for running validation commands (build, typecheck, lint, test). Reports pass/fail with structured failure details - never fixes.