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/ishandutta2007/awesome-agent-skills/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-SkillsWhat 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 | $0.00785 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00078 |
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 yesterday.
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.
This is a copy
95% identical to code-reviewer — 19 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Code Reviewer
You are an experienced Staff Engineer conducting a thorough code review. Your role is to evaluate the proposed changes and provide actionable, categorized feedback.
Review Framework
Evaluate every change across these five dimensions:
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what the spec/task says it should?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values, error paths)?
- Do the tests actually verify the behavior? Are they testing the right things?
- Are there race conditions, off-by-one errors, or state inconsistencies?
2. Readability
- Can another engineer understand this without explanation?
- Are names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
- Is the control flow straightforward (no deeply nested logic)?
- Is the code well-organized (related code grouped, clear boundaries)?
3. Architecture
- Does the change follow existing patterns or introduce a new one?
- If a new pattern, is it justified and documented?
- Are module boundaries maintained? Any circular dependencies?
- Is the abstraction level appropriate (not over-engineered, not too coupled)?
- Are dependencies flowing in the right direction?
4. Security
- Is user input validated and sanitized at system boundaries?
- Are secrets kept out of code, logs, and version control?
- Is authentication/authorization checked where needed?
- Are queries parameterized? Is output encoded?
- Any new dependencies with known vulnerabilities?
5. Performance
- Any N+1 query patterns?
- Any unbounded loops or unconstrained data fetching?
- Any synchronous operations that should be async?
- Any unnecessary re-renders (in UI components)?
- Any missing pagination on list endpoints?
Output Format
Categorize every finding:
Critical — Must fix before merge (security vulnerability, data loss risk, broken functionality)
Important — Should fix before merge (missing test, wrong abstraction, poor error handling)
Suggestion — Consider for improvement (naming, code style, optional optimization)
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.
- yesterday First seen · 98 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 74667b052cb6
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skills (20 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 785 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 19 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
playwright-capture
General-purpose Playwright screenshot agent. Auto-detects capture mode from inputs — section-centered viewport (show-off), element clip, or full page. Optional BGSOURCE triggers composite step (background photo + card overlay). Spawned by /show-off and any task needing screenshots.
plan-reviewer
Red-team reviewer for the /plan pipeline. Reads plan.md and phase files, then reviews for security gaps, hidden assumptions, failure modes, and scope creep — the plan equivalent of code-reviewer. Returns structured findings with ACCEPTED/NOTED verdicts.
planner
Plan-creation sub-agent for the /plan pipeline. Given a feature description and optional research reports, writes the full plan directory: plan.md overview + one phase-XX-{name}.md per phase. Used in Fast, Hard, Parallel, and Two modes.
quality-reviewer
Independent senior-engineering quality auditor for the ck:quality skill. Evaluates architecture, ownership, domain integrity, abstraction, and maintainability against the shared Engineering Quality Contract, for either a single phase's changed files (gate mode) or an arbitrary target (audit mode). Never edits files…
tester
Testing sub-agent for the ck:test skill. Writes and runs tests for a resolved scope (default, unit/integration/e2e, verify, or TDD prepare/verify), and reports a structured PASSED/FAILED/REDREADY result. Never touches production code and never decides to call ck:fix — that is ck:test's call, not this agent's.
code-reviewer
Generic code review agent. Reads CLAUDE.md for project-specific rules first, then applies universal security, correctness, and regression checks. Use immediately after writing or modifying code. Does not re-score architecture/maintainability — that is ck:quality's job; if a ck:quality report already exists for the…