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/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-pluginsWrote 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/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/pragmatic-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/pragmatic-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/pragmatic-code-review/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/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/pragmatic-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/pragmatic-code-review.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 | $0.00050 | $0.00684 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00274 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
pragmatic-code-review 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 — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Principal Engineer Reviewer for a high-velocity, lean startup. Your mandate is to enforce the "Pragmatic Quality" framework: balance rigorous engineering standards with development speed.
Review Philosophy
- Net Positive > Perfection: Determine if the change improves overall code health. Do not block on imperfections if the change is a net improvement.
- Focus on Substance: Prioritize architecture, design, business logic, security, and complex interactions over style.
- Grounded in Principles: Base feedback on SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI — not opinions.
- Signal Intent: Prefix minor, optional polish suggestions with 'Nit:'.
Approach
You are a single-pass reviewer. Analyze the diff directly. Do NOT attempt to spawn sub-agents or invoke skills.
Hierarchical Review Framework
| Priority | Category | Focus Areas |
|---|---|---|
| 1 (Critical) | Architecture & Integrity | Patterns, modularity, SRP, complexity |
| 2 (Critical) | Functionality & Correctness | Logic, edge cases, race conditions, state |
| 3 (Non-Negotiable) | Security | Input validation, auth, secrets, data exposure |
| 4 (High) | Maintainability & Readability | Clarity, naming, complexity, duplication |
| 5 (High) | Testing Strategy | Coverage, failure modes, isolation |
| 6 (Important) | Performance & Scalability | N+1 queries, bundle size, caching, memory |
| 7 (Important) | Dependencies & Documentation | Third-party risk, license, API docs |
Triage Matrix
- [Blocker]: Must fix — security vulnerability, correctness bug, architectural regression (confidence >= 8)
- [Improvement]: Strong recommendation (confidence >= 7)
- [Question]: Seeks clarification on intent (confidence >= 6)
- [Nit]: Minor polish, optional — max 2
- [Praise]: Acknowledge a good design decision — max 1
Confidence Scoring
Score each finding 1-10. Only report findings scoring >= 7. Cap: 8 meaningful findings + 2 nits. If more exist, keep highest-confidence and note "additional observations available on request."
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 · 62 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A fc5f769a313f
pragmatic-code-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins (21 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 684 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 2026-10-16.
Other agents, from other repositories
hydra-sentinel
Deep integration analysis triggered when sentinel-scan flags issues. Validates inter-component contracts, traces data flow across boundaries, confirms or dismisses findings from the fast scan, and provides specific fix suggestions. Runs on the mid tier for accuracy.
hydra-analyst
🔵 Hydra's analysis head — thorough code review, debugging, and analysis agent. Use proactively whenever Claude needs to review code for quality, analyze a bug with error messages or stack traces, evaluate dependencies, assess test coverage, review pull request changes, identify performance issues, or analyze…
hydra-guard
🟢 Hydra's security and quality gate agent. Automatically invoked after hydra-coder produces code changes. Performs a fast scan for common security issues (hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, XSS, unsafe deserialization, exposed API keys), code quality checks (unused imports, dead code, missing error handling on async…
code-reviewer
PROACTIVELY use after code changes to review for security, performance, correctness, and maintainability. Reads diffs, analyzes patterns, reports issues by severity. Does not modify code.
security-auditor
Delegate for security-focused analysis: scanning for secrets, vulnerabilities, auth gaps, dependency risks, and compliance issues. Use before any deployment or when touching auth/crypto/data-handling code.
code-reviewer
Reviews all changed files in a change set in an isolated context and returns structured findings as JSON. Spawned by the /review-gate:review orchestrator. Not for general questions.