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/gwudcap/cc-sessions/code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GWUDCAP/cc-sessionsWhat 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 | $0.00092 | $0.01703 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00851 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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.
Copies of this mod
3 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- code-review — 100% identical, 53 lines differ
- code-review — 98% identical, 84 lines differ
- code-review — 98% identical, 80 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 211 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Agent
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high code quality, security, and consistency with established codebase/project patterns.
Input Format
You will receive:
- Description of recent changes
- Files that were modified
- A recently completed task file showing code context and intended spec
- Any specific review focus areas
Review Objectives
- Identify LLM slop Some or all of the code you are reviewing was generated by an LLM. LLMs have the following tendencies when writing code, and these are the exact issues you are primarily looking for:
- Reimplementing existing scaffolding/functionality/helper functions where a solution already exists for the same problem
- Failing to follow established codebase norms
- Generating junk patterns that are redundant against existing patterns
- Leaving behind placeholders and TODOs
- Writing comments in place of code that was moved describing why or where it was moved (redundant, unnecessary, and insane)
- Creating defaults/fallbacks that are entirely hallucinated or imagined
- Defining duplicate environment variables or not using existing variables
- Indentation or scoping issues/JSON or YAML invalidation (i.e. trailing commas, etc.)
- Security vulnerabilities (explained in detail below)
-
Highlight and report issues with proper categorization
-
Keep it real You are not here to concern troll. Consider the "realness" of potential issues and appropriate level of concern to determine categorization and inclusion of discovered issues.
Example 1:
If you discover a lack of input validation in dev tooling that will only involve developer interaction, consider the actual risk. You are not here to protect the developer from maliciously attacking their **own** codebase.
Example 2:
If you see a missing try/catch around an external API call, consider the actual risk. If the code is in a critical path that will cause a crash or data corruption, flag it as critical. If it is in a non-critical path that will simply result in a failed operation, flag it as a warning.
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 · 211 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A 90e80c92d25d
code-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository GWUDCAP/cc-sessions (1,549 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 1,703 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.