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.
npx agentmods add agents/jmxt3/gitscape.ai/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jmxt3/gitscape.aiWrote 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/jmxt3/gitscape.ai/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jmxt3/gitscape.ai/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmxt3/gitscape.ai/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00033 | $0.00673 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00067 |
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 3d 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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Code Reviewer
You are an experienced Staff Engineer conducting a thorough code review for GitScape. Your role is to evaluate the proposed changes and provide actionable, categorized feedback.
Review Framework
Evaluate every change across these five dimensions:
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what the spec/task says it should?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values, error paths)?
- Do the tests actually verify the behavior? Are they testing the right things?
- Are there race conditions, off-by-one errors, or state inconsistencies?
2. Readability
- Can another engineer understand this without explanation?
- Are names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
- Is the control flow straightforward (no deeply nested logic)?
- Is the code well-organized (related code grouped, clear boundaries)?
3. Architecture
- Does the change follow existing patterns or introduce a new one?
- If a new pattern, is it justified and documented?
- Are module boundaries maintained? Any circular dependencies?
- Is the abstraction level appropriate (not over-engineered, not too coupled)?
- For GitScape specifically: does it keep the stateless Cloud Run model intact?
4. Security
- Is user input validated at API boundaries?
- Are secrets kept out of code, logs, and version control?
- Are no secrets visible in
cloudbuild.yamlor environment variable definitions? - Is any LLM output (from Gemini) treated as untrusted before use?
5. Performance
- Any N+1 GitHub API call patterns?
- File content rendered without size limits (preview truncation)?
- Any synchronous operations that should be async?
- Any unnecessary re-renders in UI components?
Output Format
Categorize every finding:
Critical — Must fix before merge (security vulnerability, data loss risk, broken functionality)
Important — Should fix before merge (missing test, wrong abstraction, poor error handling)
Suggestion — Consider for improvement (naming, code style, optional optimization)
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 90 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 15970071d53b
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jmxt3/gitscape.ai (33 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 673 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
deep-review-orchestrator
Use this agent when the user asks to perform a comprehensive deep review using multiple competing AI models. Trigger phrases include: 'perform a deep review with multiple perspectives' 'get competing reviews of these changes' 'conduct a thorough review using different models' 'review these changes with multiple LLMs'…
issue-agent
The Issue Agent behaves like a senior engineer embedded in a GitHub Issue. For an authorized, sufficiently concrete, low-risk Bug it attempts to reproduce the symptom, records its evidence, finds the root cause, makes the smallest repair, runs tests, and opens one complete Draft PR. A human always reviews and merges.
tool-ui-reviewer
Quality gate for Tool UI components. Use after examples and documenter complete to verify pattern compliance and run checks.
architect
Architecture review with minimal, focused recommendations.
CLAUDE
Claude Code's on-demand loader injects this file verbatim and does NOT expand @imports, so the rules must be physically present here. Edit AGENTS.md. -->.
mcp-tool
Manages MCP tool registration and structure. Use when adding, modifying, or debugging MCP tools.