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/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/idoforgod/Dissertation-Simulator-AgenticWorkflowWhat 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 | $0.00033 | $0.02317 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.01158 |
| Sonnet 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 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 — 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.
- 2d 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 (107 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 2,317 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.