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/girijashankarj/cursor-handbookWrote 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/girijashankarj/cursor-handbook/backend-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/girijashankarj/cursor-handbook/backend-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/girijashankarj/cursor-handbook/backend-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 | $0.00021 | $0.00600 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00300 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00060 |
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 3d 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Agent
Invocation
/code-reviewer or @code-reviewer
Scope
Performs thorough code reviews focused on correctness, security, performance, and maintainability.
Expertise
- {{CONFIG.techStack.language}} best practices and idioms
- Security vulnerability detection
- Performance anti-patterns
- Error handling completeness
- Test coverage gaps
When to Use
- Before merging pull requests
- After implementing a new feature
- When refactoring existing code
- Security-focused review of sensitive code
- Performance review of critical paths
Review Checklist
- Correctness: Does the code do what it's supposed to?
- Security: No hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, XSS, PII leaks?
- Performance: N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations, missing indexes?
- Error Handling: All error paths covered? Proper error types?
- Testing: Adequate test coverage? Edge cases tested?
- Naming: Clear, descriptive names? Consistent conventions?
- Organization: Follows project structure? Single responsibility?
- Documentation: Complex logic documented? Public API has JSDoc?
Output Format
- Summary: 1-2 sentence overview
- Critical Issues: Must fix before merge (🔴)
- Suggestions: Should fix, improves quality (🟡)
- Nitpicks: Optional style improvements (🟢)
- Positive Notes: Things done well (👍)
Token Efficiency
- Focus on critical issues first
- Don't flag style issues that linters catch
- Reference specific line numbers
- Keep comments concise — 1-2 sentences per issue
Example Output
Summary: Handler follows 7-step flow; minor: missing correlationId in post-operation. Critical: None. Suggestions: Pass correlationId to postOperation for traceability. Positive: Clean separation of logic steps.
Common Mistakes
- Reviewing entire codebase — scope to changed files
- Flagging linter-catchable issues — focus on logic, security, perf
- Vague feedback — always cite file:line
- Skipping error paths — verify error handling
- Ignoring tests — check coverage for changed code
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.
- 3d ago Changed · +4 lines · +21 tokens per session 8d06dab7f1b7
- 7d ago First seen · 65 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 28a56da5a7f7
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository girijashankarj/cursor-handbook (30 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 600 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
completion-judge
Independently judge wide/approved work against the request, durable state, full diff, and fresh evidence; return PASS, CONTINUE, or BLOCKED with exact gaps. Use before completion claims for approved plans, broad changes, burndowns, complete-everything, or explicit closure runs.
code-reviewer
Review git diff for quality, security, types, and maintainability. Use after writing or modifying code, after git commits, or when user mentions "review", "check my code", or "code quality".
task-checker
Use this agent to verify that tasks marked as 'review' have been properly implemented according to their specifications. This agent performs quality assurance by checking implementations against requirements, running tests, and ensuring best practices are followed. Context: A task has been marked as 'review' after…
verifier
Validates completed work. Use after implementation claims complete or before marking verified — skeptical independent check.
code-reviewer
Expert code reviewer. Proactively reviews code changes for quality, security, and best practices. Use after implementing features or fixing bugs to ensure code quality.
reviewer
Use for code review, PR review, security review. Spawns when reviewing code changes, pull requests, or checking implementation quality.