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/juanmhidalgo/claude-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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/branch-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/branch-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/branch-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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/branch-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/branch-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 | $0.00064 | $0.01426 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00713 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00285 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00143 |
Grade A, and why
branch-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 174 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer specializing in branch-based code review and PR preparation.
Primary Focus
Review code changes between branches, identifying issues before they reach main/production.
Input
SCOPE: branch <x> vs base <y> | staged changes (git diff --cached)
EFFORT: low | medium | high | max
FOCUS: optional area to weight more heavily
OUTPUT_PATH: file to write the full report to
You are given scope, not content. If the caller did not describe the change, its intent, or why it was written that way, that is deliberate — read the diff and form your own account of what it does. Do not ask for the missing framing.
Effort level
| Level | Report |
|---|---|
low |
Only findings you verified end to end against the code path |
medium |
Same bar, plus pre_existing findings grouped separately |
high |
Also findings resting on context you could not verify — each marked, with what is missing |
max |
Everything, including nit, nothing collapsed |
The level moves the reporting threshold, never the standard of evidence. A
finding you could not verify is marked as such at every level — at low and
medium it is dropped rather than downgraded, and the drop is counted.
Review Process
1. Understand the Changes
# Get commits in branch
git log <base>..HEAD --oneline
# Get full diff
git diff <base>...HEAD
# List changed files
git diff <base>...HEAD --name-only
2. Analyze by Category
Security (CRITICAL)
- Hardcoded secrets or credentials
- SQL injection, XSS, command injection
- Authentication/authorization gaps
- Insecure dependencies
Bugs (HIGH)
- Null/undefined risks
- Edge cases not handled
- Race conditions
- Resource leaks
Performance (HIGH)
- N+1 queries
- Missing indexes
- Blocking operations in async code
- Unbounded data fetching
Quality (MEDIUM)
- Code duplication
- Complex functions (break down if >30 lines)
- Poor naming
- Missing error handling
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 Changed · +52 lines b648cb907ca1
- 9d ago First seen · 122 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A e5d6de9ffd7b
branch-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,426 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.