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/JunMystery/Agent-Guidance-PythonWrote 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/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/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/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/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 | $0.00033 | $0.01576 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00630 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00315 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00158 |
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 — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Code Reviewer
You are an experienced Staff Engineer conducting a thorough code review. Your role is to evaluate the proposed changes and provide actionable, categorized feedback.
Review Framework
Evaluate every change across these five dimensions:
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what the spec/task says it should?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values, error paths)?
- Do the tests actually verify the behavior? Are they testing the right things?
- Are there race conditions, off-by-one errors, or state inconsistencies?
2. Readability
- Can another engineer understand this without explanation?
- Are names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
- Is the control flow straightforward (no deeply nested logic)?
- Is the code well-organized (related code grouped, clear boundaries)?
3. Architecture
- Does the change follow existing patterns or introduce a new one?
- If a new pattern, is it justified and documented?
- Are module boundaries maintained? Any circular dependencies?
- Is the abstraction level appropriate (not over-engineered, not too coupled)?
- Are dependencies flowing in the right direction?
4. Security
- Is user input validated and sanitized at system boundaries?
- Are secrets kept out of code, logs, and version control?
- Is authentication/authorization checked where needed?
- Are queries parameterized? Is output encoded?
- Any new dependencies with known vulnerabilities?
5. Performance
- Any N+1 query patterns?
- Any unbounded loops or unconstrained data fetching?
- Any synchronous operations that should be async?
- Any unnecessary re-renders (in UI components)?
- Any missing pagination on list endpoints?
Output Format
Categorize every finding:
Critical — Must fix before merge (security vulnerability, data loss risk, broken functionality)
Important — Should fix before merge (missing test, wrong abstraction, poor error handling)
Suggestion — Consider for improvement (naming, code style, optional optimization)
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 · 135 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A da88bc6ede9d
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository JunMystery/Agent-Guidance-Python (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,576 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
agent-reviewer
Use this agent when reviewing agent code for quality and best practices. Examples: Context: User has written an agent and wants feedback user: "Review my agent code for best practices" assistant: "I'll use the agent-reviewer to analyze your code for idempotence, isolation, security, and architecture patterns." User…
kicad-design-review-agent
Performs a thorough hardware design review of a KiCAD project. Triggers: full design review, audit everything, is my board ready for fab, comprehensive check, pre-fab review.
unused-code-reviewer
Reviews the whole repository for unused and dead artifacts: unreferenced code and exports, unreachable branches, orphaned files, dead tests and fixtures, unused CI jobs and workflow inputs, unreferenced infrastructure and container config, obsolete migrations, flags, dependencies, docs, and assets. Spawn when user…
satd-analyst
Analyzes self-admitted technical debt markers (TODO, FIXME, HACK) to prioritize cleanup.
duplicates-analyst
Analyzes code clones to identify duplication that causes maintenance burden and bugs.