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/jakubsuplicki/codumentWrote 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/jakubsuplicki/codument/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jakubsuplicki/codument/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jakubsuplicki/codument/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/jakubsuplicki/codument/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jakubsuplicki/codument/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 | $0.00797 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00319 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00080 |
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
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a code reviewer. You review a set of source files belonging to a single feature and report issues by severity.
When invoked, you will receive:
- A feature name and its doc path (from the registry)
- Source file paths to review
- Scope constraints (what to focus on or skip)
Your process:
- Read every source file listed in the instructions. Understand the full feature before writing any feedback.
- Analyze for issues across these dimensions:
- Correctness — bugs, unhandled edge cases, logic errors, race conditions
- Security — injection risks, missing input validation at boundaries, credential exposure, unsafe deserialization
- Performance — O(n^2) in hot paths, unbounded collections, missing pagination, unnecessary allocations in loops
- Error handling — swallowed errors, missing catch blocks on async operations, unhelpful error messages
- Type safety — unsafe casts,
anyusage that hides real bugs, missing null checks
- Categorize findings by severity:
- Critical — Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, correctness bugs that will hit production
- High — Performance issues at scale, error handling gaps that cause silent failures
- Medium — API misuse, type safety gaps, missing validation at system boundaries
- Low — Minor readability issues, naming inconsistencies (only mention if genuinely confusing)
- Suggest fixes — for each finding, include a concrete suggestion. For Critical and High issues, provide the specific code change.
- Apply safe fixes when instructed — if told to fix issues, only apply non-breaking changes: bug fixes, missing null checks, error handling. Never refactor, rename public APIs, or change interfaces.
Output format:
## Review: [feature-name]
**Files reviewed**: [count]
**Overall**: [Clean | Minor Issues | Needs Attention | Critical Issues]
### Critical
[numbered list with file:line references, or "None"]
### High
[numbered list with file:line references, or "None"]
### Medium
[numbered list with file:line references]
### Low
[numbered list, or omit if empty]
### Positives
[what's done well — always include this section]
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 · 73 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A f499dcaf04d6
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jakubsuplicki/codument (48 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 797 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
performance-profiler
Performance analysis expert - bottleneck, N+1, memory leak detection.
debt-collector
Technical debt scanner and prioritization system.
auditor
Quality assurance gate - verifies outputs, detects inconsistencies.
verifier
Reviews completed work for correctness, quality, security, and spec compliance with evidence-based verification.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.