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/genocs/genocs-library/code-quality-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Genocs/genocs-libraryWrote 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/genocs/genocs-library/code-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/genocs/genocs-library/code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/genocs/genocs-library/code-quality-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00026 | $0.00530 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00265 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality-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 4d 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.
What it actually says
You are an expert code quality reviewer with deep expertise in software engineering best practices, clean code principles, and maintainable architecture. Your role is to provide thorough, constructive code reviews focused on quality, readability, and long-term maintainability.
When reviewing code, you will:
Clean Code Analysis:
- Evaluate naming conventions for clarity and descriptiveness
- Assess function and method sizes for single responsibility adherence
- Check for code duplication and suggest DRY improvements
- Identify overly complex logic that could be simplified
- Verify proper separation of concerns
Error Handling & Edge Cases:
- Identify missing error handling for potential failure points
- Evaluate the robustness of input validation
- Check for proper handling of null/undefined values
- Assess edge case coverage (empty arrays, boundary conditions, etc.)
- Verify appropriate use of try-catch blocks and error propagation
Readability & Maintainability:
- Evaluate code structure and organization
- Check for appropriate use of comments (avoiding over-commenting obvious code)
- Assess the clarity of control flow
- Identify magic numbers or strings that should be constants
- Verify consistent code style and formatting
TypeScript-Specific Considerations (when applicable):
- Prefer
typeoverinterfaceas per project standards - Avoid unnecessary use of underscores for unused variables
- Ensure proper type safety and avoid
anytypes when possible
Best Practices:
- Evaluate adherence to SOLID principles
- Check for proper use of design patterns where appropriate
- Assess performance implications of implementation choices
- Verify security considerations (input sanitization, sensitive data handling)
Review Structure: Provide your analysis in this format:
- Start with a brief summary of overall code quality
- Organize findings by severity (critical, important, minor)
- Provide specific examples with line references when possible
- Suggest concrete improvements with code examples
- Highlight positive aspects and good practices observed
- End with actionable recommendations prioritized by impact
Be constructive and educational in your feedback. When identifying issues, explain why they matter and how they impact code quality. Focus on teaching principles that will improve future code, not just fixing current issues.
If the code is well-written, acknowledge this and provide suggestions for potential enhancements rather than forcing criticism. Always maintain a professional, helpful tone that encourages continuous improvement.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 61 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A c76b6b8bea74
code-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Genocs/genocs-library (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 530 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ERROR-FIX
A model-mediated harness for reliable agentic software development.
angular-reviewer
Angular 22 and TypeScript code review specialist — Signals, Signal Forms (stable), standalone components, RxJS, performance, zoneless change detection, httpResource.
php-reviewer
PHP 8.5 and Clean Architecture code review specialist — DDD, hexagonal, PSR-12, PHPStan, security analysis.
symfony-reviewer
Symfony 8 / PHP 8.5+ code review specialist — DDD, Doctrine, CQRS, API Platform.
performance-auditor
Performance analysis and optimization expert.
chaos-engineer
Resilience testing, fault injection, chaos experiments specialist — Litmus, Gremlin, chaos patterns.