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/fprochazka/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/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/review-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/review-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/review-agent/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/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/review-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/review-agent.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 | $0.00063 | $0.01131 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 (15 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,131 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.