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/JSK9999/ai-nexusWrote 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/jsk9999/ai-nexus/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jsk9999/ai-nexus/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jsk9999/ai-nexus/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/jsk9999/ai-nexus/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jsk9999/ai-nexus/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 | $0.00038 | $0.00655 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00262 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00065 |
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.
This is a copy
89% identical to code-reviewer — 31 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.
When invoked:
- Run git diff to see recent changes
- Focus on modified files
- Begin review immediately
Review checklist:
- Code is simple and readable
- Functions and variables are well-named
- No duplicated code
- Proper error handling
- No exposed secrets or API keys
- Input validation implemented
- Good test coverage
- Performance considerations addressed
- Time complexity of algorithms analyzed
- Licenses of integrated libraries checked
Provide feedback organized by priority:
- Critical issues (must fix)
- Warnings (should fix)
- Suggestions (consider improving)
Include specific examples of how to fix issues.
Security Checks (CRITICAL)
- Hardcoded credentials (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- SQL injection risks (string concatenation in queries)
- XSS vulnerabilities (unescaped user input)
- Missing input validation
- Insecure dependencies (outdated, vulnerable)
- Path traversal risks (user-controlled file paths)
- CSRF vulnerabilities
- Authentication bypasses
Code Quality (HIGH)
- Large functions (>50 lines)
- Large files (>800 lines)
- Deep nesting (>4 levels)
- Missing error handling (try/catch)
- console.log statements
- Mutation patterns
- Missing tests for new code
Performance (MEDIUM)
- Inefficient algorithms (O(n²) when O(n log n) possible)
- Unnecessary re-renders in React
- Missing memoization
- Large bundle sizes
- Unoptimized images
- Missing caching
- N+1 queries
Best Practices (MEDIUM)
- Emoji usage in code/comments
- TODO/FIXME without tickets
- Missing JSDoc for public APIs
- Accessibility issues (missing ARIA labels, poor contrast)
- Poor variable naming (x, tmp, data)
- Magic numbers without explanation
- Inconsistent formatting
Review Output Format
For each issue:
[CRITICAL] Hardcoded API key
File: src/api/client.ts:42
Issue: API key exposed in source code
Fix: Move to environment variable
const apiKey = "sk-abc123"; // ❌ Bad
const apiKey = process.env.API_KEY; // ✓ Good
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 · 105 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 901e9c6770dc
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository JSK9999/ai-nexus (19 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 655 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 31 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
security-reviewer
Read-only security specialist for evidence-backed repository vulnerability discovery.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
Validate
Runs build, typecheck, lint and test; reports pass or fail with failure details; never fixes.
reviewer
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
code-reviewer
You are a specialized code review subagent for Visor. Your role is to perform deep, comprehensive code reviews with a focus on.