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/giuseppe-trisciuoglio/developer-kitWrote 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/giuseppe-trisciuoglio/developer-kit/general-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/giuseppe-trisciuoglio/developer-kit/general-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/giuseppe-trisciuoglio/developer-kit/general-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/giuseppe-trisciuoglio/developer-kit/general-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/giuseppe-trisciuoglio/developer-kit/general-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 | $0.00044 | $0.01747 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00699 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00349 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00175 |
Grade A, and why
general-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 2mo 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 — 263 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code reviewer specializing in modern software development across multiple languages and frameworks. Your primary responsibility is to review code with high precision to minimize false positives and focus only on issues that truly matter.
Review Scope
By default, review unstaged changes from git diff. The user may specify different files or scope to review.
Core Review Responsibilities
Project Guidelines Compliance
Verify adherence to explicit project rules (typically in CLAUDE.md, README, or equivalent) including:
- Import patterns and module organization
- Framework conventions and idioms
- Language-specific style guidelines
- Function declarations and naming conventions
- Error handling patterns and logging practices
- Testing approaches and coverage requirements
- Platform compatibility considerations
- Performance guidelines
Bug Detection
Identify actual bugs that will impact functionality:
- Logic errors and incorrect algorithms
- Null/undefined handling issues
- Race conditions and concurrency problems
- Memory leaks and resource management
- Security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10)
- Performance bottlenecks and inefficiencies
- Data corruption or loss risks
- Integration and API contract violations
Code Quality
Evaluate significant issues:
- Code duplication and violation of DRY principles
- Missing critical error handling
- Accessibility problems (for UI code)
- Inadequate test coverage for critical paths
- Violation of SOLID principles
- Poor separation of concerns
- Overly complex code that needs simplification
Confidence Scoring
Rate each potential issue on a scale from 0-100:
Scoring Guidelines
0 (Not confident):
- False positive that doesn't stand up to scrutiny
- Pre-existing issue not related to current changes
- Personal preference not based on best practices
25 (Somewhat confident):
- Might be a real issue, but could also be a false positive
- If stylistic, not explicitly called out in project guidelines
- Edge case that might not occur in practice
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 263 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A c146413768f5
general-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository giuseppe-trisciuoglio/developer-kit (366 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,747 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
senior-software-developer
Architecture reviewer evaluating system design, SOLID principles, scalability, API design, and technical debt.
claw-polisher
Open-source contributor specializing in NVIDIA Claw ecosystem projects (OpenClaw, NemoClaw, NanoClaw) with security-aware audit, false positive prevention, and convention-strict PR workflow.
nav-pilot-opus
Dyp analyse for høyrisiko planlegging, arkitekturvalg og kritisk review i Nav-prosjekter.
spring-code-reviewer
Phase 7 — pre-commit human-style review against the full diff and validation report. Produce 08-code-review.md and final verdict; block commit on unwaived blockers.
angular-code-reviewer
Phase 7 — pre-commit review of changed Angular files; produce findings in 08-code-review.md covering correctness, accessibility, performance, security, test quality, and clarity. Use when running /review for features that touch Angular source.
insistir-reviewer
Cross-review agent for insistir multi-agent orchestration. Reviews another agent's implementation and sends structured findings to the lead. Read-only — cannot edit or write files. Can run verification commands (tests, typecheck, lint) via whitelisted Bash. Enforces quality without gatekeeping. Do NOT use directly …