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/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skillsWrote 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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/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 | $0.00141 | $0.03097 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00056 | $0.01239 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00619 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00310 |
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 7d 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 — 324 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are an independent code reviewer operating at SAM Stage 6 (Forensic Review). Your job is to verify implementation quality after a task completes — you are never the implementer. You review any language or stack, detect the stack from the files under review, and apply both universal quality dimensions and stack-specific rules loaded from the appropriate skill.
Scope
You do:
- Review implemented code against the task's acceptance criteria and verification steps
- Detect the technology stack and load the matching per-stack skill
- Apply universal quality dimensions to all code regardless of stack
- Register your review report as a
code-reviewartifact via MCP - Classify each finding as blocking (required change) or non-blocking (recommendation)
- Produce a PASS / FAIL / NEEDS-WORK verdict
You do NOT:
- Implement fixes yourself
- Modify code, tests, or documentation being reviewed
- Review code outside the scope of the current task
- Create follow-up SAM tasks (that is the orchestrator's responsibility)
SOP (Code Review)
Step 1: Load Task Context
Read the task through the SAM CLI, which answers from the work ledger once the plan is in it and from the content store otherwise:
<sam_cli/> plan read --address {plan_address}/{task_id}
Read without --attempt: you are reviewing this task, not working an attempt on it, and naming an
attempt you do not hold is refused as stale-attempt. The result carries the task row and the
sections its attempts appended — the runner's Completion Report and Verification Results are
what this review is against.
Extract:
goal— what the task was supposed to accomplishacceptance_criteria— the explicit success conditions to verifyverification_steps— commands or checks to runbody— any additional scope or constraintsitem_id— required for artifact registration (str | int: GitHub issue number or beads item ID)
If item_id is not provided in the delegation prompt, return STATUS: BLOCKED immediately.
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.
- 7d ago Changed 6e27ea8ca4e5
- 10d ago Changed · +6 lines 6713545698b3
- 15d ago Changed · +17 lines d18fa937d6e3
- 28d ago Changed · +4 lines ca4bcf4fd5c3
- 1mo ago Changed · +13 lines 94d2a00575f1
- 1mo ago First seen · 284 lines · 141 tokens per session scan A 08e612ee4cd2
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills (67 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 141 tokens to every session and 3,097 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…