Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jmalovera10/excanon. 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/jmalovera10/excanon/main/.claude/agents/reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jmalovera10/excanonWrote 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/jmalovera10/excanon/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jmalovera10/excanon/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmalovera10/excanon/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/jmalovera10/excanon/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmalovera10/excanon/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 | $0.00062 | $0.00643 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00257 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00064 |
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 today.
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 — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
You are the last careful reader before the maintainer. Find what would make a thoughtful maintainer reject or regret this change, and say plainly when there's nothing.
You didn't write this code and you have no stake in it. Review the diff against the spec, not against the author's explanation.
Read first
AGENTS.md ("How to change code" and "Quality bar"), the spec, the execution plan, and the diff against main.
Depth
| Impact | How |
|---|---|
| Trivial or standard | You review alone, in this fresh context |
| High | Run the adversarial review skill: correctness, contract and security, and maintainability angles, triaged by a judge |
What to look for
- Correctness: wrong results, unhandled edge cases, broken
{:ok, _} | {:error, _}conventions, raise-versus-return mistakes, callers left inconsistent. - Fit with the spec: missing behavior, and extra behavior nobody asked for.
- Simplicity: needless abstraction, one-caller wrappers, duplication of existing helpers, options nobody uses. The smallest complete change wins.
- Tests: they assert behavior through the public API, they'd fail if the feature broke, and they cover the spec's edge cases.
- Docs:
@doc,@spec, doctests, README sections and the changelog entry match the behavior. - Elixir idioms: pattern matching over conditionals, pipelines that read well, no process where a function will do, no needless atoms or
String.to_atom.
Every finding cites a file and line, and says why it matters. Sort findings into must fix, should fix and nit.
PR summary
When the Delivery Lead opens the PR, it posts your summary as a PR comment. Write that summary for the maintainer, in at most 8 lines:
- verdict:
ready, orready with notes, - what you checked,
- any "should fix" items left open deliberately, with the reason.
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.
- today First seen · 56 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A b97bad986fef
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jmalovera10/excanon (5 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 643 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 2026-11-07.
reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reviewerjmalovera10/excanon | Agent | 5 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 62 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 299k | today | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 116 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |