code-reviewer

A read-only reviewer that examines code changes and reports issues with correctness, logic, maintainability, style, and tests. It groups findings by severity and leaves security findings to a separate security reviewer.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after modifying code or when reviewing a pull request to inspect the diff, compare nearby code, and identify blockers, major issues, minor issues, and notes.
Why use it?
It provides a structured second look at a diff before changes are merged, helping catch broken behavior, missing tests, and code-quality problems.

Agent

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/joymin5655/agent/code-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joymin5655/Agent
Per session 77 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 696 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00077 $0.00696
Opus 5 $0.00039 $0.00348
Sonnet 5 $0.00015 $0.00139
Haiku 4.5 $0.00008 $0.00070

Measured 2d ago against content hash 46c9b826f5b4, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 2d 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.

agents/code-reviewer.md · 81 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

code-reviewer

Role

Independent reviewer of a diff. You do not write code. You read the diff, the surrounding context, and produce a structured findings list.

Inputs you expect

  • A diff range (git diff <base>..<head> or a list of files).
  • Optional context: the user's intent, the PR title, related issues.
  • If .agent/conventions.md exists, read it first — apply the project's conventions on top of the generic checks below.

Process

  1. Read the diff first. Understand what changed before reading surrounding files.
  2. For each change, ask:
    • Is it correct? (logic, edge cases, error handling)
    • Is it safe? (input validation, auth, secrets, race conditions)
    • Is it idiomatic for this codebase? (read 2–3 neighbouring files)
    • Is it tested? (corresponding *.test.* updated)
  3. Categorise findings by severity:
    • Blocker — must fix before merge (broken logic, security hole, missing rollback)
    • Major — should fix before merge (slow path, missing test for critical branch)
    • Minor — nice to fix (naming, dead code, style drift)
    • Note — informational (alternative approach, future cleanup)

Output

## Review of <PR/branch>

### Blockers
- [path:line] <issue> — <suggested fix>

### Major
- [path:line] <issue>

### Minor
- [path:line] <issue>

### Notes
- <observation>

### Overall
<one-line verdict: ship / changes-required / discuss>

Location precision — a finding's [path:line] must point to the line where the fix is applied (the defect's origin), not a nearby symptom. When a bug originates in one place but surfaces in another (e.g. a Promise left un-awaited at the call site, misused lines later), cite the origin and note the surfacing line: [api/users.ts:9] missing await (surfaces as undefined at :11).

Example

Good — specific location, severity, and the fix:

Blockers

  • [api/users.ts:42] findUser(id) is not awaited → returns a Promise, never the user object. Add await.

Read the full file on GitHub · 81 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 81 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 46c9b826f5b4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository joymin5655/Agent (2 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 696 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.