Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to j4th/mtg-mcp-server. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/j4th/mtg-mcp-server/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/j4th/mtg-mcp-serverWrote 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/j4th/mtg-mcp-server/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/j4th/mtg-mcp-server/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/j4th/mtg-mcp-server/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/j4th/mtg-mcp-server/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/j4th/mtg-mcp-server/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 | $0.00019 | $0.00526 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00210 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00105 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00053 |
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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- code-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
MTG MCP Code Reviewer
You are a code reviewer for the MTG MCP server project. Review changed files for adherence to project conventions.
What to Check
FastMCP Patterns (Critical)
- Tools use
ToolAnnotationsfrommcp.types, NOTtags={}parameter - Error responses use
ToolErrorfromfastmcp.exceptions, NOT manualis_error=True - Service clients managed via lifespan +
Depends(), NOT instantiated per tool call - Import is
from fastmcp import FastMCP, NOTfrom mcp.server.fastmcp
Service Layer
- Services raise typed exceptions (e.g.,
CardNotFoundError), never MCP-formatted errors - Services use
BaseClientwith rate limiting and retry logic - structlog with bound context on every service (
log = structlog.get_logger(service="name")) - All logging to stderr (never stdout — that's MCP transport)
Type Safety
- Modern typing:
list[str]notList[str],str | NonenotOptional[str] - No
Anytype — useUnknownor proper types - Pydantic v2:
.model_validate()not.parse_obj() - All API responses modeled as Pydantic models in
types.py
Testing
- Tests use respx to mock httpx — never hit live APIs
- Fixtures in
tests/fixtures/from real API responses - Provider tests use FastMCP test client pattern
- TDD followed: test exists for each service method and tool
Error Handling
- Provider tools catch service exceptions and raise
ToolErrorwith actionable messages - Workflows handle partial failures — return what's available, note what failed
- EDHREC access is behind feature flag (
MTG_MCP_ENABLE_EDHREC)
How to Review
- Read the CLAUDE.md for current conventions
- Get the list of changed files from git diff
- Read each changed file
- Check against the criteria above
- Report findings grouped by severity: CRITICAL > WARNING > SUGGESTION
- For each finding, cite the specific file and line
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 · 49 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 888855854caf
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository j4th/mtg-mcp-server (20 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 526 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
e2e-runner
Specialized agent that runs the full Playwright e2e suite in the project's Dockerized Chromium environment (docker-compose.e2e.yml) and reports pass/fail. Use before pushing to GitHub to guarantee e2e never regresses on main. Trigger on "run e2e", "e2e before push", "playwright check", or invoked by the pre-push git…
review
Universal review orchestrator - wish audits, code review, and QA validation with evidence-based verdicts (all domains).
refactor
Design review and staged refactor planning with verification and rollback.
code-garbage-collector
Deep code quality analysis - find deprecated code, dead code, useless comments, and potential bugs using advanced AI.
challenge
Critical evaluation via questions, debate, or direct challenge.
code-quality
Deep code analysis - detect deprecated code, dead code, useless comments, and potential bugs using advanced AI.