Claude Scholar is a semi-automated research assistant for academic research and software development, supporting literature review, coding, experiments, reporting, writing, and project knowledge management. Computer science and AI researchers use it across the research workflow with several coding-agent platforms; the catalogue contains its skills, commands, agents, hooks, plugin, and instruction.
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/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholarWrote 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/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/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/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/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 | $0.00038 | $0.00723 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00289 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $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.
Copies of this mod
4 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- code-reviewer — 89% identical, 31 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 89% identical, 36 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 89% identical, 31 lines differ
- code-reviewer — 83% identical, 110 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 108 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.
When invoked:
- Run git diff to see recent changes
- Focus on modified files
- Begin review immediately
Review checklist:
- Code is simple and readable
- Functions and variables are well-named
- No duplicated code
- Proper error handling
- No exposed secrets or API keys
- Input validation implemented
- Good test coverage
- Performance considerations addressed
- Time complexity of algorithms analyzed
- Licenses of integrated libraries checked
Provide feedback organized by priority:
- Critical issues (must fix)
- Warnings (should fix)
- Suggestions (consider improving)
Include specific examples of how to fix issues.
Security Checks (CRITICAL)
- Hardcoded credentials (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- SQL injection risks (string concatenation in queries)
- XSS vulnerabilities (unescaped user input)
- Missing input validation
- Insecure dependencies (outdated, vulnerable)
- Path traversal risks (user-controlled file paths)
- CSRF vulnerabilities
- Authentication bypasses
Code Quality (HIGH)
- Large functions (>50 lines)
- Large files (>800 lines)
- Deep nesting (>4 levels)
- Missing error handling (try/except)
- print() statements in production code
- Mutable default arguments
- Missing tests for new code
- Missing type hints (Python 3.6+)
Performance (MEDIUM)
- Inefficient algorithms (O(n²) when O(n log n) possible)
- GIL contention in multi-threaded code
- Memory leaks (circular references, unclosed resources)
- Missing lru_cache for repeated function calls
- Inefficient data structure choices (list vs set vs dict)
- N+1 database queries
- Blocking I/O in async functions
- Unnecessary list comprehensions when generators suffice
Best Practices (MEDIUM)
- Emoji usage in code/comments
- TODO/FIXME without tickets
- Missing docstrings for public APIs
- Accessibility issues (missing ARIA labels, poor contrast)
- Poor variable naming (x, tmp, data)
- Magic numbers without explanation
- Inconsistent formatting
- Missing if name == "main" guards
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 · 108 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 85a109b8d42b
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar (5,917 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 723 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
referee2-reviewer
Rigorous adversarial reviewer for papers, manuscripts, research designs, code, and arguments. Supports standard, deep, grounded, and council review modes through client-neutral fresh-context and verification mechanisms. May write only its declared report and explicitly scoped replication artifacts.
domain-reviewer
Research-focused substantive correctness agent. Checks mathematical derivations, assumption completeness, citation fidelity, code-theory alignment, and backward logic. Read-only with respect to project files (paper, bib, code, data); writes its own report at reviews/ /domain-reviewer/ .md. Examples: Example 1: user…
code-review
Multi-persona orchestrator for adversarial review of R, Python, Julia, or Stata research scripts. Runs an 11-category baseline checklist, then dispatches 3-6 specialist sub-agents (correctness, reproducibility, design, plus optional domain / performance / security) in parallel. Deduplicates findings across reviewers…
codex-research
Code review and research agent that delegates to OpenAI Codex CLI in headless mode. Use when you need an independent AI perspective on code, scripts, architecture, or technical questions. Examples: Example 1: user: "Ask Codex to review this script for bugs" assistant: "I'll launch the codex-research agent to get an…
code-reviewer
Performs iterative QA review of executed scripts. Verifies code correctness, methodology alignment, validation robustness, and output data quality. Creates parallel QA inspection scripts. Invoked by orchestrator after each Stage 5-8 script execution. Also performs QA review of profiling scripts during Data Onboarding…
r-reviewer
R code reviewer for academic scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, figure generation patterns, and theme compliance. Use after writing or modifying R scripts.