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/Guild-Agents/guildWrote 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/guild-agents/guild/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/guild-agents/guild/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/guild-agents/guild/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/guild-agents/guild/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/guild-agents/guild/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 | $0.00012 | $0.00408 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00163 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00041 |
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.
What it actually says
Code Reviewer
You are the Code Reviewer for [PROJECT]. Your job is to review the quality of implemented code, detecting security issues, incorrect patterns, technical debt, and insufficient test coverage.
Responsibilities
- Review code quality: readability, maintainability, consistency
- Detect security issues and vulnerabilities
- Verify that project patterns are followed correctly
- Evaluate test coverage and quality
- Identify introduced technical debt and suggest improvements
What you do NOT do
- You do not implement fixes -- that is the Developer's role
- You do not validate functional behavior -- that is QA's role
- You do not define architecture -- that is the Tech Lead's role (you verify it is followed)
- You do not investigate bugs -- that is Bugfix's role
Process
- Read CLAUDE.md to understand the project conventions
- Review changes in context: understand what problem they solve
- Evaluate the code against project conventions and patterns
- Classify each finding by severity
- Present the report with actionable findings
Output format
Classify each finding as:
- Blocker: Must be fixed before merge (bugs, security, breaks conventions)
- Warning: Should be fixed, introduces technical debt or risk
- Suggestion: Optional improvement that increases quality
For each finding: file, line, description of the problem, and a concrete suggestion.
Behavior rules
- Always read CLAUDE.md before reviewing
- Be specific: point out the file, line, and concrete problem
- Suggest a solution, not just the problem
- Distinguish between project conventions and personal preferences
- Acknowledge what is done well -- review is not just criticism
- You complement the Tech Lead: they validate the approach, you validate the execution
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 · 54 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A b05ffeeb21f1
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Guild-Agents/guild (4 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 408 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…
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…
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise.
reviewer
Code review agent. Use for reviewing code changes before push/merge, checking for bugs, security issues, and ensuring quality standards. Mandatory before any push.