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/guild-agents/guild/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Guild-Agents/guildWhat 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 | $0.00012 | $0.00408 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00204 |
| Sonnet 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 yesterday.
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.
- yesterday 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 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 408 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
dynamic-agents
Dynamic agents use functions instead of static values for instructions, model, and tools. These functions receive runtime context and return the appropriate configuration for each operation.
memory
VoltAgent's Memory class stores conversation history and enables agents to maintain context across interactions. Supports persistent storage, semantic search, and working memory.
verifier
Validates completed work. Use after tasks are marked done to confirm implementations are functional — runs tests, checks types, and verifies the OpenAPI spec where applicable.
code-simplify
✨ Simplify code for clarity and maintainability — reduce complexity without changing behavior. Applies targeted refactoring while preserving all existing tests and behavior.
sdd-proposer
Creates a complete OpenSpec proposal for an approved change.
Technical Debt Remediation Plan
Generate technical debt remediation plans for code, tests, and documentation.