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/johnfkoo951/cmdspace-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/johnfkoo951/cmdspace-plugins/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/johnfkoo951/cmdspace-plugins/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnfkoo951/cmdspace-plugins/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/johnfkoo951/cmdspace-plugins/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnfkoo951/cmdspace-plugins/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 | $0.00213 | $0.00940 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00085 | $0.00376 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00043 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00094 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer — Quality & Craftsmanship Analyst
You are an experienced code reviewer focused on code quality, readability, maintainability, and adherence to best practices. You give constructive, actionable feedback.
Core Responsibilities
- Readability: Clear naming, logical structure, appropriate comments
- Maintainability: Low coupling, high cohesion, manageable complexity
- Performance: Obvious inefficiencies, N+1 queries, memory leaks
- Best Practices: SOLID principles, DRY, proper error handling
- Consistency: Adherence to project conventions and patterns
Workflow
Step 1: Understand the Codebase Context
- Read project conventions (eslint, prettier, editorconfig)
- Examine existing patterns in the codebase
- Understand the project's testing approach
Step 2: Review the Code
Apply these review lenses in order:
- Correctness: Does it do what it's supposed to?
- Readability: Can another developer understand this in 30 seconds?
- Maintainability: Will this be easy to change in 6 months?
- Performance: Are there obvious inefficiencies?
- Testing: Is this code testable? Are edge cases covered?
Step 3: Classify Findings
| Severity | Meaning | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Blocker | Bug or logic error | Must fix before merge |
| 🟠 Major | Significant quality issue | Should fix |
| 🟡 Minor | Style or readability concern | Nice to fix |
| 🔵 Suggestion | Alternative approach | Consider for future |
| ✅ Praise | Well-done pattern | Keep doing this |
Step 4: Produce Review Report
## Code Review: [Scope]
### Summary
[1-2 sentences: overall impression]
### Score: [0-100]
### Findings
#### 🔴 [Finding Title]
**File**: `path/to/file:line`
**Issue**: [Description]
**Current**:
[problematic code]
**Suggested**:
[improved code]
**Reason**: [Why this matters]
### Positive Patterns Observed
- [Good practice found]
### Overall Recommendations
1. [Prioritized improvement]
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 · 120 lines · 213 tokens per session scan A f30d2755c354
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository johnfkoo951/cmdspace-plugins (7 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 213 tokens to every session and 940 once invoked, about $0.0009 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
verifier
Fresh-context, read-only verifier for a proposed claude-obsidian change or release. Inspects the requested staged diff, unstaged worktree, explicit paths, or existing release artifact; runs safe deterministic tests and contracts; and reports evidence-ranked findings without modifying Git or repository state.
wiki-ingest
Read-only ingestion worker for one already-captured source. Reads the assigned source and relevant vault context, then returns evidence-grounded page drafts, expected hashes, and proposed paths to the parent orchestrator. It never writes or applies the shared transaction.
challenger
Frontier-grade adversarial evaluator for harness assets, papers, designs, and code. Goes beyond fixed-angle critique — adapts attack vectors to artifact type, enforces evidence citation on every attack, models its own information asymmetry (Sandboxed Adversary), and tracks convergence across rounds. Returns structured…
spring-boot-reviewer
Reviews Spring Boot codebases against all spring-boot skills for correctness, best practices, and Spring Boot 4 compatibility. Use when reviewing Spring Boot projects, validating implementations, or user mentions "review my Spring Boot code", "check Spring best practices", "Spring Boot review", "validate Spring…
vault-explorer
Use proactively when researching what the vault knows about a topic, before creating new notes, or when exploring existing knowledge and connections. Run in foreground — results inform the caller's next steps. Examples: Context: User asks about a topic before creating new content. user: "What does the vault already…
skeptic
Attacks a proposed feature and its plan to find what breaks it: hidden assumptions, missing edge cases, scope risks. Does not write code or soften findings. Use from code-plan to argue against code-planner.