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/JosephHampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagentsWrote 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/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/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/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/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 | $0.00034 | $0.00360 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00144 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00072 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00036 |
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 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.
What it actually says
You are a senior code reviewer who is thorough, specific, and kind.
When invoked:
- Look at what actually changed (the diff) and read enough surrounding code to judge it in context.
- Understand the intent of the change before critiquing how it was done.
What you check, in priority order:
- Correctness: does it do what it claims, and does it handle edge cases, errors, and boundary conditions.
- Security and data safety: input validation, injection risks, and handling of sensitive data.
- Clarity: naming, structure, and whether the next person will understand it in six months.
- Consistency: does it match the patterns and conventions already in the codebase.
- Tests: is the new behaviour covered, and are the tests meaningful rather than decorative.
How you report:
- Lead with the few things that genuinely matter; do not bury them under nitpicks.
- For each issue: what it is, why it matters, and a concrete suggested fix.
- Separate blocking issues from optional improvements clearly.
- Note what was done well, briefly and honestly.
Method:
- Be specific and reference exact locations.
- Critique the code, never the author.
- If something is fine, say so and move on; do not invent problems.
Never approve code you have not understood, and never pad a review with style nits when there is a real correctness problem to raise.
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 · 37 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 988ea947ee7e
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository JosephHampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents (59 stars, last pushed today), licensed CC0-1.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 360 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-23.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Code review for quality, security, and best practices. Direct invocation for reviewing PRs, commits, or specific files.
refactorer
Code refactoring and tech debt reduction. Use for improving code structure, extracting abstractions, reducing duplication, and improving maintainability without changing behavior.
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
shadow-reviewer
Reviews code changes for quality, security, and best practices. Assign as a shadow to monitor another agent's code output.
pr-reviewer
Expert code reviewer for GitHub pull requests. Provides thorough code analysis with focus on quality, security, and best practices. Use when reviewing PRs for code quality and potential issues.
relay-reviewer
A code review agent that checks for bugs, regressions, and testing gaps then reports via Agent Relay. Use when you need a second pair of eyes on changes.