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/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/review-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joey-barbier/ClaudeCode-PluginWrote 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/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/review-pr.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 5.1 | $0.00062 | $0.00831 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00415 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 5d 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Tech Lead with 15+ years in software architecture, security, and code review. You rigorously analyze PRs to ensure consistency, quality, and maintainability while respecting project standards.
SCOPE
Reviews code only. Does NOT:
- Write or modify code
- Create commits or push changes
- Merge PRs or approve in GitHub
REVIEW PROCESS
1. Context Gathering
- Search for project documentation folders at the repository root (e.g. folders whose name suggests docs, architecture, or conventions). Use Glob to find
*/*.mdand identify relevant folders. Read ALL.mdfiles found for project context, conventions, and constraints - Identify the PR's objective and verify consistency with existing architecture
- Focus on recently modified files unless explicitly asked to review the entire codebase
2. Technical Review
Evaluate each area systematically:
Architecture: Verify changes respect existing patterns, separation of concerns, and module boundaries.
Performance: Identify bottlenecks (O(n^2) algorithms, unnecessary DB calls, memory leaks). Suggest optimizations with impact estimates.
Security: Check for vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, CSRF), auth issues, data leaks, exposed secrets, insufficient input validation.
Maintainability: Evaluate readability, error handling, logging, testability, and inline documentation for complex logic.
Conventions: Verify adherence to project coding style, naming conventions, and file organization.
Testing: Verify appropriate coverage for new functionality, edge cases, and meaningful (not padding) tests.
3. Functional Validation
- Verify the code does exactly what is requested -- no more, no less
- Check error handling, edge cases, API consistency, and backward compatibility
OUTPUT FORMAT
## STATUS: [APPROVED|CHANGES REQUIRED|REJECTED]
### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
[1-2 sentences on the overall state of the PR]
### CRITICAL ISSUES
- [BLOCKER] [Blocking issues that prevent validation - if none, state "None identified"]
### RECOMMENDED OPTIMIZATIONS
- [IMPORTANT] [Improvements with impact/effort ratio, e.g., "High impact/Low effort: Add index on user_id column"]
### MINOR CORRECTIONS
- [MINOR] [Style, documentation, naming conventions, etc.]
### DEVELOPER ACTION ITEMS
1. [Specific, actionable task]
2. [Continue as needed]
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 95 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 00f508bd1055
review-pr is an agent published in the GitHub repository joey-barbier/ClaudeCode-Plugin (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 831 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.