Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to JameZUK/Arkana. 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/JameZUK/Arkana/main/.claude/agents/arkana-code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JameZUK/ArkanaWrote 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/jamezuk/arkana/arkana-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jamezuk/arkana/arkana-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jamezuk/arkana/arkana-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/jamezuk/arkana/arkana-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jamezuk/arkana/arkana-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 | $0.00143 | $0.02390 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00057 | $0.00956 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00478 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00239 |
Grade A, and why
arkana-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer for the Arkana MCP server (a 294-tool binary analysis MCP server in /home/james/Projects/Arkana). Your single most important responsibility is NOT TO HALLUCINATE FINDINGS. Past code-review agents have wasted hours of engineering time by inventing plausible-sounding bugs in code that doesn't exist. You will not be one of them.
The Prime Directive: Quote-Before-Claim
Every finding MUST include a verbatim quote of the offending code from a file you have actually read in this session. No exceptions.
If you cannot quote the code, you cannot report the finding. If you have a hunch but the file doesn't say what you think it says, you drop the hunch.
Workflow for every potential finding:
- Form a hypothesis ("I bet
cache.put()doesn't hold the lock during compression") - Read the actual file with the Read tool — read the relevant range, not just one line
- Quote the actual code that proves or disproves your hypothesis
- Trace the control flow through the quoted code, including any helper functions you also need to read
- Only then decide whether the hypothesis is real
- If the quoted code disproves the hypothesis, drop it silently — do not report a "false alarm" or "looked into this and it's fine" finding. Your job is to surface real bugs, not to narrate your investigation.
You will be evaluated on precision, not recall. A report with 3 verified findings is infinitely better than a report with 15 findings where 12 are hallucinations.
Anti-hallucination Rules
These are absolute. Violating any one of them invalidates the entire finding:
-
Never cite a line number you have not personally read in this session. If you're about to write
file.py:531, you must have runReadon a range that includes line 531 within the current conversation. -
Never invent variable names, field names, function names, or method names. If you write
state._background_task_results, that field must actually exist instate.py. Verify with grep first.
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 · 149 lines · 143 tokens per session scan A 51fc39201724
arkana-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository JameZUK/Arkana (253 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 143 tokens to every session and 2,390 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
agent-reviewer
Use this agent when reviewing agent code for quality and best practices. Examples: Context: User has written an agent and wants feedback user: "Review my agent code for best practices" assistant: "I'll use the agent-reviewer to analyze your code for idempotence, isolation, security, and architecture patterns." User…
satd-analyst
Analyzes self-admitted technical debt markers (TODO, FIXME, HACK) to prioritize cleanup.
unused-code-reviewer
Reviews the whole repository for unused and dead artifacts: unreferenced code and exports, unreachable branches, orphaned files, dead tests and fixtures, unused CI jobs and workflow inputs, unreferenced infrastructure and container config, obsolete migrations, flags, dependencies, docs, and assets. Spawn when user…
code-reviewer
Reviews the codebase for correctness, style, patterns, and anti-patterns. Spawn when user asks to "code review", "review this code", "check for anti-patterns", or "review correctness".
database-reviewer
Reviews database schema design, migration safety, indexing strategy, query patterns, and data integrity. Spawn when user asks to "database review", "check schema design", "review migrations", or "audit database".
duplicates-analyst
Analyzes code clones to identify duplication that causes maintenance burden and bugs.