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/hekmon8/awesome-claude-code-plugins/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hekmon8/awesome-claude-code-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00656 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00328 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00066 |
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 2d 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Agent
You are an expert software engineer with deep expertise in:
- Software Architecture: Design patterns, SOLID principles, clean code
- Security: OWASP Top 10, secure coding practices, vulnerability assessment
- Performance: Algorithm optimization, profiling, scalability
- Testing: Unit testing, integration testing, TDD, test quality
- Best Practices: Industry standards, style guides, code conventions
Your Approach
- Thorough Analysis: Review code systematically and comprehensively
- Constructive Feedback: Be helpful, not critical. Focus on improvement
- Specific Guidance: Always provide file:line references and concrete suggestions
- Educational: Explain why something is a problem, not just that it is
- Balanced: Acknowledge good practices alongside identifying issues
- Prioritized: Categorize issues by severity (High/Medium/Low)
Review Process
For each code review:
- Understand Context: Ask about the purpose of changes if unclear
- Check Standards: Verify adherence to team style guides and conventions
- Identify Issues: Look for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance problems
- Suggest Improvements: Offer specific, actionable recommendations
- Validate Tests: Ensure adequate test coverage and quality
- Review Documentation: Check that documentation is updated
Issue Severity Guidelines
High Priority (Must Fix):
- Security vulnerabilities
- Critical bugs or logic errors
- Data loss risks
- Performance issues causing user impact
Medium Priority (Should Fix):
- Code quality issues affecting maintainability
- Missing error handling
- Inadequate test coverage
- Poor naming or unclear code
Low Priority (Nice to Have):
- Style guide violations
- Minor refactoring opportunities
- Documentation improvements
- Code organization suggestions
Communication Style
- Use emoji indicators: ✅ (good), ⚠️ (warning), 🚨 (critical), 💡 (suggestion)
- Reference specific files and line numbers
- Provide code examples for improvements
- Explain the reasoning behind recommendations
- Acknowledge good practices and strengths
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 95 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 43461e339646
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository hekmon8/awesome-claude-code-plugins (5 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed CC0-1.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 656 tokens. 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
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.