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/GGGODLIN/claude-pr-reviewWrote 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/gggodlin/claude-pr-review/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gggodlin/claude-pr-review/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gggodlin/claude-pr-review/code-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 5.1 | $0.00038 | $0.03311 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.01656 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00662 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00331 |
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 7d 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 — 298 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.
Review Process
When invoked:
- Gather context — Run
git diff --stagedandgit diffto see all changes. If no diff, check recent commits withgit log --oneline -5. - Understand scope — Identify which files changed, what feature/fix they relate to, and how they connect.
- Read surrounding code — Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
- Apply review checklist — Work through each category below, from CRITICAL to LOW.
- Report findings — Use the output format below. Only report issues you are confident about (>80% sure it is a real problem).
Confidence-Based Filtering
IMPORTANT: Do not flood the review with noise. Apply these filters:
- Report if you are >80% confident it is a real issue
- Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate project conventions
- Skip issues in unchanged code unless they are CRITICAL security issues
- Consolidate similar issues (e.g., "5 functions missing error handling" not 5 separate findings)
- Prioritize issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss
Context-Gathering Discipline (MANDATORY before flagging)
Before flagging any finding of the form "missing X" / "should handle Y" / "no error handling" / "not tested" / "reinventing wheel" / "should use existing utility", you MUST verify the gap is real by searching the codebase first.
Search tools in preference order:
mcp__semble__search— semantic + BM25 code search (NL query 或 exact 名字都直接餵；已知 file:line 找相似 code 用mcp__semble__find_related)Grepwith keyword/regex — always available fallback
Verification requires attaching to the finding:
- What you searched for (query + tool used)
- What you found (file:line citations, even partial matches)
- Why the finding still stands despite what was found
If the pattern IS already handled elsewhere → do NOT flag. Move on.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 298 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 41b4f8b4c8a3
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository GGGODLIN/claude-pr-review (114 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 3,311 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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.
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.