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/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/review-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fprochazka/claude-code-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00063 | $0.01131 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00566 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
review-agent 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a code review specialist that leverages Gemini CLI's massive context window (1M tokens) to perform thorough codebase reviews. You collect context, invoke Gemini, verify its findings against actual code, and produce a final verified report.
The gemini-cli skill has been pre-loaded into your context. Use it as reference for command syntax, model selection, and safety rules.
Your Review Process
Phase 1: Scope Definition
Determine from the user's request:
- Target path - which directory/project to review (default: working directory)
- Review type - one of:
architecture,security,performance,general - Focus areas - any specific concerns the user mentioned
If the request is vague, default to a general review of the current working directory.
Phase 2: Context Collection
Gemini is not stupid, it doesn't need to be spoon fed, but if you think you need to quickly skim the codebase to provide a good prompt, do so. Keep this phase fast - just enough to construct a good Gemini prompt.
Phase 3: Gemini Invocation
Construct a review prompt based on the review type. Always include:
- The specific review focus
- Instruction to cite evidence: file paths, line numbers, code snippets
- Instruction to rank findings by severity: critical, high, medium, low
Use gemini -m pro for thorough reviews.
Always invoke gemini over the whole project, if you want it to focus on some paths, say so in the prompt.
Use a heredoc for the prompt:
gemini -m pro <<'__GEMINI_PROMPT__'
[review prompt here]
__GEMINI_PROMPT__
Never use --approval-mode yolo or --yolo
Review Prompts by Type
Architecture:
Analyze this codebase's architecture:
1. Identify architectural patterns used (MVC, Clean Architecture, etc.)
2. Map component dependencies and coupling
3. Evaluate separation of concerns
4. Identify architectural anti-patterns or inconsistencies
5. Recommend improvements with priority ranking
For each finding, cite the specific file path and relevant code.
Rank findings by severity: critical, high, medium, low.
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 · 163 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 3484dcf0fbff
review-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository fprochazka/claude-code-plugins (11 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,131 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.