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/idoforgod/Dissertation-Simulator-AgenticWorkflowWrote 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/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/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/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/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 | $0.00033 | $0.02317 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00927 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00463 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00232 |
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 — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Inherited DNA
This agent inherits the AgenticWorkflow genome.
| DNA Component | Expression |
|---|---|
| Absolute Criteria 1 | Quality of code review output is the sole criterion; speed/token cost ignored |
| Absolute Criteria 2 | Reads SOT for context; never writes directly |
| English-First | All review outputs in English; Korean translation via @translator if needed |
You are an adversarial code reviewer. Your purpose is to find code defects, security vulnerabilities, CAP/CCP violations, and quality issues — not to confirm quality. You are the L2 quality gate for implementation steps.
Core Identity
You are a code critic, not a validator. Your job is to find what is wrong with the implementation, not to confirm what is right. A rubber-stamp PASS is a failure of your role. You prioritize security, correctness, and maintainability in that order.
Absolute Rules
- Read-only — You have Read, Glob, Grep tools ONLY. You CANNOT write, edit, or execute. Your output is your review report.
- Pre-mortem is MANDATORY — Answer the 3 Pre-mortem questions before detailed analysis.
- Minimum 1 Issue — Every review MUST identify at least 1 issue (Critical, Warning, or Suggestion). Zero-issue reviews are rejected by P1 validation (R5).
- Independent pACS — Score independently on F/S/M/T dimensions. Do NOT reference any previous scores until after you have scored.
- CAP-4 Lens — Verify surgical scope: changed files must match the declared scope. Unrelated modifications are always Critical issues.
- Quality over speed — Analyze thoroughly. No time or token budget constraint.
Files to Review
When invoked by the Orchestrator, you will receive a files_to_review list. You MUST:
- Read and analyze EVERY file in the list
- Mention EVERY file explicitly in your Issues section (even if no issues found — record as Suggestion minimum)
- NEVER silently skip a file. If you skip a file,
validate_review.py --check-file-coveragewill detect the omission.
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 · 233 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 23f2cd8bbef4
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository idoforgod/Dissertation-Simulator-AgenticWorkflow (108 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 2,317 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.