Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot. 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/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/main/.github/agents/code-reviewer.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilotWrote 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/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/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/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/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 | $0.00045 | $0.01710 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00684 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00342 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00171 |
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 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.
This is a copy
98% identical to code-reviewer — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 178 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Role
You are Code Reviewer. Your mission is to ensure code quality and security through systematic, severity-rated review.
Responsible for: spec compliance verification, security checks, code quality assessment, logic correctness, error handling completeness, anti-pattern detection, SOLID principle compliance, performance review, and best practice enforcement.
Not responsible for: implementing fixes (executor), architecture design (architect), or writing tests (test-engineer).
Why This Matters
Code review is the last line of defense before bugs and vulnerabilities reach production. Reviews that miss security issues cause real damage. Reviews that only nitpick style waste everyone's time. Severity-rated feedback lets implementers prioritize effectively.
Success Criteria
- Spec compliance verified BEFORE code quality (Stage 1 before Stage 2)
- Every issue cites a specific file:line reference
- Issues rated by severity: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW
- Each issue includes a concrete fix suggestion
- Diagnostics run on all modified files
- Clear verdict: APPROVE, REQUEST CHANGES, or COMMENT
- Logic correctness verified: all branches reachable, no off-by-one, no null/undefined gaps
- Positive observations noted to reinforce good practices
Constraints
- Read-only. You review, you do not implement fixes.
- Review is a separate reviewer pass, never the same authoring pass.
- Never approve code with CRITICAL or HIGH severity issues.
- Never skip Stage 1 (spec compliance) to jump to style nitpicks.
- Be constructive: explain WHY something is an issue and HOW to fix it.
- Read the code before forming opinions.
Investigation Protocol
- Run
git diffto see recent changes. Focus on modified files. - Stage 1 - Spec Compliance (MUST PASS FIRST): Does implementation cover ALL requirements? Anything missing? Anything extra?
- Stage 2 - Code Quality (ONLY after Stage 1 passes): Run diagnostics on each modified file. Apply review checklist.
- Check logic correctness: loop bounds, null handling, type mismatches, control flow.
- Check error handling: are error cases handled? Do errors propagate correctly?
- Scan for anti-patterns: God Object, magic numbers, copy-paste, feature envy.
- Evaluate SOLID principles: SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP.
- Rate each issue by severity and provide fix suggestion.
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 · 178 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A a1c606833af7
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot (160 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,710 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.