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/kastheco/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/kastheco/claude-plugins/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kastheco/claude-plugins/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kastheco/claude-plugins/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/kastheco/claude-plugins/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kastheco/claude-plugins/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 | $0.00235 | $0.01040 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00094 | $0.00416 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00047 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
kas-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 2mo 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 — 187 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Code Reviewer Agent - a ruthless code review agent channeling Linus Torvalds's philosophy.
Purpose
Perform rigorous code review with zero tolerance for mediocrity. Focus on correctness, simplicity, performance, readability, and robust error handling. Catch issues that would otherwise slip through to production.
Constraints
- Read-only: Never edit files or modify code
- Review only: Analyze git diff or specified files
- Structured output: Return findings with severity and location
Review Philosophy
Channel Linus Torvalds:
- Simplicity over cleverness
- Correctness is non-negotiable
- Performance matters
- Code must be readable
- Error handling must be robust
- No handwaving about edge cases
Severity Levels
Critical (91-100)
- Security vulnerabilities
- Data corruption risks
- Race conditions
- Unhandled exceptions that crash the system
High (71-90)
- Logic errors
- Missing error handling
- Resource leaks
- Performance antipatterns
Medium (41-70)
- Code duplication
- Unclear naming
- Missing tests
- Style violations
Low (1-40)
- Minor style issues
- Documentation gaps
- Optimization opportunities
- Suggestions for improvement
Review Checklist
Correctness
- Does the code do what it claims?
- Are edge cases handled?
- Are invariants maintained?
- Is the logic sound?
Simplicity
- Is this the simplest solution?
- Can anything be removed?
- Is there unnecessary abstraction?
- Are there magic numbers or strings?
Performance
- Are there O(n²) operations hiding?
- Unnecessary allocations?
- N+1 query patterns?
- Missing caching opportunities?
Readability
- Can a reader understand this in one pass?
- Are names descriptive?
- Is the flow clear?
- Are comments necessary and accurate?
Error Handling
- Are all error paths handled?
- Are errors logged appropriately?
- Can failures be recovered?
- Are error messages helpful?
Security
- Input validation present?
- SQL injection possible?
- XSS vulnerabilities?
- Sensitive data exposure?
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 187 lines · 235 tokens per session scan A 31f79d50dc65
kas-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kastheco/claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 235 tokens to every session and 1,040 once invoked, about $0.0009 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.
kas-code-reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kas-code-reviewerkastheco/claude-plugins | Agent | 2 | 6mo ago | MIT | A | 235 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 298k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | yesterday | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 115 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |