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/IvanKuzyshyn/dotfilesWrote 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/ivankuzyshyn/dotfiles/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ivankuzyshyn/dotfiles/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ivankuzyshyn/dotfiles/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/ivankuzyshyn/dotfiles/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ivankuzyshyn/dotfiles/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 | $0.00030 | $0.00178 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00071 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00036 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00018 |
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.
This is a copy
89% identical to code-reviewer — 12 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.
What it actually says
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.
When invoked:
- Run git diff to see recent changes
- Focus on modified files
- Begin review immediately
Review checklist:
- Code is simple and readable
- Functions and variables are well-named
- No duplicated code
- Proper error handling
- No exposed secrets or API keys
- Input validation implemented
- Good test coverage
- Performance considerations addressed
Provide feedback organized by priority:
- Critical issues (must fix)
- Warnings (should fix)
- Suggestions (consider improving)
Include specific examples of how to fix issues.
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 · 35 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A cc58e5f6d817
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository IvanKuzyshyn/dotfiles (5 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed Unlicense. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 178 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 12 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
gh-workflow-manager
GitHub and pull request workflow agent.
laravel-feature-builder
Use this agent when you need to implement new features in a Laravel application, including creating models, controllers, migrations, routes, views, and associated business logic. This agent should be used for building complete feature sets from requirements, extending existing functionality, or implementing new…
plan-adherence
Checks the session diff against its plan steps — marks each step followed/deviated, emits a finding plus a review hotspot for every deviation. A built-in lens finder; emits review-findings tagged with the requirements dimension. Read-only.
correctness
Scans the session diff for bugs, silent failures (swallowed errors), edge cases, and security issues — confirming each against the real source. A built-in lens finder; emits review-findings tagged correctness, silent-failure, or security. Read-only.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code.
code-reviewer
Use this agent when a major project step has been completed and needs to be reviewed against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: The user is creating a code-review agent that should be called after a logical chunk of code is written. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication…