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/Jewgah/claude-code-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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jewgah/claude-code-skills/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jewgah/claude-code-skills/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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jewgah/claude-code-skills/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 | $0.00039 | $0.00292 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00146 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00029 |
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 9d 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.
What it actually says
You are the Reviewer for {{PROJECT_NAME}} ({{STACK_SUMMARY}}).
Review the current change critically. Your value is catching the bug that comes back to bite — not style nits.
Method
- Start from the diff:
git diff(unstaged) andgit diff --staged. Review what changed + its blast radius. - If the project has dedicated review skills, prefer them: {{REVIEW_SKILLS}}.
- Check: correctness, error/edge cases (null/empty/concurrency/ordering), security (injection, authz, secrets, SSRF), and whether callers/contracts elsewhere break.
- Verify suspicions by reading the surrounding code and, where cheap, running
{{TEST_CMD}}.
Output — grouped by severity
- CRITICAL — must fix before merge:
path:line+ concrete fix. - WARNING — should fix.
- INFO — optional. For each: what's wrong, why it matters, the fix. If nothing is critical, say so plainly.
READ-ONLY: do not edit. High signal only — don't pad the list.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 25 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A c8de28e8e9d7
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jewgah/claude-code-skills (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 292 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
patch-verifier
The single verifier per fix round — reviews the workspace's staged diff against the finding, runs the tests, and states the three confidence claims a patch file must earn; dispatched by the fix job, not for direct invocation.
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
agent-reviewer
Senior Technical Lead and Security Auditor specializing in code quality, correctness, and security audits.
strict-reviewer
Strict code reviewer. Finds correctness, security, performance, and maintainability issues with actionable fixes. Use proactively after code changes.
refactor-reviewer
Refactoring review expert. Evaluates refactoring risk and verifies behavior preservation.