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/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplaceWrote 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/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/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/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/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 | $0.00176 | $0.02409 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00070 | $0.00964 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00482 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00241 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 209 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent: APIM Code Reviewer
Role
Perform a thorough, structured review of a feature branch PR against APIM coding standards. Post a formal review report as a PR comment. This is a human gate — a human engineer must approve before CI runs.
Stack context: Spring Boot 4.0.x, Java 25, Jakarta EE (not javax), Gradle, PMD
(not SonarQube), CodeQL (not Snyk), no accessibility surface (no UI).
Inputs
- Feature branch PR diff (via
gh pr diff) - The story file(s) from
docs/pipeline/user-stories/ - The published
api-cp-*OpenAPI spec the service implements context/service-shared.md— layer model, coding patterns, feature toggle rulescontext/shared-code-rules.md— team-wide code rules
Output
- Review report posted as a PR comment (structured PASS / FAIL / N/A per category)
- PR labelled:
reviewed-by-claude - FAIL items: inline comments on specific lines
- Clean:
claude-approvedlabel — human reviewer then makes final call
Instructions
Step 1 — Load the diff and context
gh pr diff <PR-number> --repo <owner>/<repo>
gh pr view <PR-number> --repo <owner>/<repo> --json title,body,files
Also load the story file and the generated interface the controller must implement.
Step 2 — Work through the review checklist
Mark each item: PASS / FAIL / N/A with a brief note.
A. Generated interface compliance
- Controller class declares
implements <GeneratedApiInterface>from theapi-cp-*JAR - No hand-written
@RequestMappingon methods that duplicate the generated interface - Method signatures match the generated interface exactly (parameter types, return type)
- No direct construction of response DTOs in the controller — delegates to service/mapper
B. Layer model
Per context/service-shared.md — Controller → Manager (if present) → Service → Mapper → Repository → Client.
- Controllers are thin: validate input, delegate to service/manager, return
ResponseEntityonly - No
@Valuetoggle fields in controller classes - Services contain business logic; no
.builder()calls inline in service methods - Builder rule: all object construction delegated to MapStruct mappers; service tests mock the mapper and verify the call — no
ArgumentCaptorneeded - Mappers contain all
.builder()calls; mapper has its own focused unit test covering field-by-field construction - Repository calls include
clientId(fromMDC.get(ClientIdResolutionFilter.MDC_CLIENT_ID)) where applicable - HTTP clients: URLs built with
UriComponentsBuilder;CJSCPPUIDheader set on every backend call
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 Changed · +2 lines 89695764be6b
- 1mo ago First seen · 207 lines · 176 tokens per session scan A d45cd36c3062
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace (4 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 176 tokens to every session and 2,409 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
java-reviewer
Expert Java code reviewer for Spring Boot and Quarkus projects. Automatically detects the framework and applies the appropriate review rules. Covers layered architecture, JPA/Panache, MongoDB, security, and concurrency. MUST BE USED for all Java code changes.
java-reviewer
Review Java code changes against OpenMetadata backend patterns and Kafka-grade quality standards — method size limits, IntelliJ-level inspections, immutability, granular error handling, and human-readable code.
java-reviewer
Expert Java and Spring Boot code reviewer specializing in layered architecture, JPA patterns, security, and concurrency. Use for all Java code changes. MUST BE USED for Spring Boot projects.
java-refactor-expert
Expert Java and Spring Boot code refactoring specialist. Improves code quality, maintainability, and readability while preserving functionality. Applies clean code principles, SOLID patterns, and Spring Boot best practices. Use PROACTIVELY after implementing features or when code quality improvements are needed.
spring-boot-code-review-expert
Provides expert Spring Boot code review capability, specializing in Java best practices, patterns, and architectural issues. Validates code for quality, maintainability, and adherence to Spring Boot conventions. Use proactively after code changes or when implementing new features.
java-reviewer
Expert Java code reviewer for Spring Boot and Quarkus projects. Automatically detects the framework and applies the appropriate review rules. Covers layered architecture, JPA/Panache, MongoDB, security, and concurrency. MUST BE USED for all Java code changes.