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/ifixai-ai/claude-strikeWrote 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/ifixai-ai/claude-strike/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ifixai-ai/claude-strike/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ifixai-ai/claude-strike/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/ifixai-ai/claude-strike/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ifixai-ai/claude-strike/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 | $0.00051 | $0.02758 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.01103 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00552 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00276 |
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 — 256 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.
Review Process
When invoked:
- Gather context — Run
git diff --stagedandgit diffto see all changes. If no diff, check recent commits withgit log --oneline -5. - Detect the stack — Identify language and framework from signal files (see table below) and pick the matching framework-specific checks.
- Understand scope — Identify which files changed, what feature/fix they relate to, and how they connect.
- Read surrounding code — Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
- Apply review checklist — Work through each category below, from CRITICAL to LOW.
- Report findings — Use the output format below. Only report issues you are confident about (>80% sure it is a real problem).
Detect the Stack First
Pick the framework-specific section that matches the diff. Don't apply React rules to a Go service or flag a missing useEffect dep in a Django view.
| Signal file / marker | Stack | Framework section to apply |
|---|---|---|
package.json + react, next |
React / Next.js | React/Next.js patterns |
package.json + express, fastify, koa, hono |
Node backend | Node/backend patterns |
pyproject.toml / requirements.txt + django, fastapi, flask |
Python web | Python patterns |
go.mod |
Go | Go patterns |
Cargo.toml |
Rust | Rust patterns |
| Any | Any | Security, Code quality, Performance, Best practices (always) |
Examples in this file are illustrative — the principle matters, not the syntax. Adapt fixes to the idioms of the stack you're reviewing.
Confidence-Based Filtering
IMPORTANT: Do not flood the review with noise. Apply these filters:
- Report if you are >80% confident it is a real issue
- Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate project conventions
- Skip issues in unchanged code unless they are CRITICAL security issues
- Consolidate similar issues (e.g., "5 functions missing error handling" not 5 separate findings)
- Prioritize issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss
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 · 256 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A c2594fc62c8c
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ifixai-ai/claude-strike (47 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 2,758 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
StoryVerifier
QC sub-agent. Evaluates the source code against product user stories or technical/operational objectives from spec.md to ensure all requirements are fully implemented.
ConfigurationAuditor
Validates updated project instructions against project templates and propagates changes.
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…