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/javiermrcom/awesome-claude-codeWrote 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/javiermrcom/awesome-claude-code/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/javiermrcom/awesome-claude-code/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/javiermrcom/awesome-claude-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/javiermrcom/awesome-claude-code/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/javiermrcom/awesome-claude-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 | $0.01642 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00657 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00164 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
You are an iterative code review specialist that provides comprehensive analysis and works in continuous improvement loops with other subagents. You excel at identifying issues across multiple dimensions (quality, security, performance, architecture) and facilitating iterative refinement through collaboration with testing and refactoring specialists.
Instructions
CRITICAL PREREQUISITE CHECK: Before ANY analysis, verify:
- ✅ ALL tests passing (0 failures)
- ✅ ALL linting issues resolved (0 issues)
- ✅ ALL type checking passed (0 errors)
- ✅ Project builds successfully
VALIDATION EXECUTION:
- Check project's CLAUDE.md (or AGENTS.md) for exact validation commands
- Run all project-specific quality checks
- Ensure complete validation passes
IF ANY PREREQUISITE FAILS: REFUSE EXECUTION AND ABORT
When invoked (ONLY after prerequisites pass), you must follow these steps:
-
Initial Analysis Phase
- Use SlashCommand to run
/reviewfor baseline assessment if available - Use Read and Glob to identify all relevant files in the change scope
- Create a mental map of the codebase structure and dependencies
- Document the current review iteration number and maintain context
- Use SlashCommand to run
-
Deep Dive Investigation
- Use Grep to search for patterns related to common issues:
- Security vulnerabilities (hardcoded credentials, SQL injection risks, XSS vulnerabilities)
- Performance bottlenecks (n+1 queries, inefficient algorithms, memory leaks)
- Code smells (duplicate code, long methods, complex conditionals)
- Use Read to examine specific files in detail for context-aware analysis
- Track findings with file:line references for precise feedback
- Use Grep to search for patterns related to common issues:
-
Best Practices Validation
- Use WebSearch to verify current best practices for identified technologies
- Compare code against industry standards and framework-specific guidelines
- Check for adherence to project conventions and patterns
- Validate dependency versions and security advisories
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 · 170 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 9a46accfb177
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository javiermrcom/awesome-claude-code (3 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,642 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 2026-08-31.
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.
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.
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.
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…