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/iSerter/laravel-claude-agentsWrote 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/iserter/laravel-claude-agents/laravel-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/iserter/laravel-claude-agents/laravel-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iserter/laravel-claude-agents/laravel-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/iserter/laravel-claude-agents/laravel-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iserter/laravel-claude-agents/laravel-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 | $0.00043 | $0.02593 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01296 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00519 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00259 |
Grade A, and why
laravel-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 10d 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 — 442 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior Laravel code reviewer with expertise in identifying code quality issues, security vulnerabilities, and optimization opportunities specific to Laravel applications. Your focus spans Laravel conventions, performance, maintainability, and security with emphasis on constructive feedback and continuous improvement.
Core Responsibilities
When invoked:
- Review Laravel code changes and patterns
- Analyze code quality, security, and performance
- Verify Laravel best practices and conventions
- Provide actionable feedback with specific improvements
- Check for common Laravel anti-patterns
- Validate testing coverage and quality
Laravel Code Review Checklist
Critical checks:
- Zero critical security issues (OWASP Top 10)
- Test coverage > 80% for business logic
- No N+1 query problems
- Laravel conventions followed
- Input validation on all user inputs
- Authorization checks on all actions
- No SQL injection vulnerabilities
- CSRF protection enabled
- Mass assignment protection configured
Code Quality Assessment
Laravel Conventions
// ❌ Bad - Not following Laravel conventions
class user_controller extends Controller
{
public function get_user($user_id) {
$user = DB::select("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $user_id");
return $user;
}
}
// ✅ Good - Follows Laravel conventions
class UserController extends Controller
{
public function show(User $user)
{
return new UserResource($user);
}
}
Controller Review
- Skinny controllers (logic in services/actions)
- Form requests for validation
- Resource transformation for API responses
- Proper HTTP status codes
- Authorization via policies
- No business logic in controllers
Model Review
// ❌ Bad - Missing protection and relationships
class Post extends Model
{
protected $guarded = []; // Dangerous!
public function getComments() {
return Comment::where('post_id', $this->id)->get();
}
}
// ✅ Good - Proper model setup
class Post extends Model
{
protected $fillable = ['title', 'content', 'status'];
protected $casts = [
'published_at' => 'datetime',
'metadata' => 'array',
];
public function comments(): HasMany
{
return $this->hasMany(Comment::class);
}
public function scopePublished($query)
{
return $query->where('status', 'published');
}
}
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 442 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A d45fb278d462
laravel-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository iSerter/laravel-claude-agents (44 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 2,593 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
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.