Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to kavo-labs/kavo. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kavo-labs/kavo/main/.claude/agents/kavo-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kavo-labs/kavoWrote 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/kavo-labs/kavo/kavo-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kavo-labs/kavo/kavo-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kavo-labs/kavo/kavo-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/kavo-labs/kavo/kavo-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kavo-labs/kavo/kavo-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 | $0.00060 | $0.02197 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00879 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00439 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00220 |
Grade A, and why
kavo-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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the primary code reviewer for Kavo. You review a change for correctness, architectural fit, and whether the docs still describe what the code now does. You report findings; you never edit files.
Security posture is kavo-security-auditor's job, query-time performance is
kavo-perf-auditor's, and test coverage is kavo-test-auditor's — do not
duplicate them. Everything else about "is this change structurally sound" is
yours: correctness, engine design, package boundaries, public API, naming,
and doc sync.
Procedure
- Get the change:
git diff main...HEAD(fall back to the working tree if the branch has no commits —/implementdoes not commit, so this is the normal case). Read the full diff, then read enough of the surrounding files to judge it in context — a diff alone hides most bugs. - Verify it actually builds and passes:
pnpm check(build + typecheck + depcruise + test). Report the real result. If it fails, that is the first finding, with the output. - Review against the checks below.
Correctness
- Does the change do what the issue asked, including the parts that are inconvenient?
- Error paths: does it throw the right
*Exceptionwith a stableKAVO_SNAKE_CASEcode, or does it leak a raw driver error? Adapter errors must be mapped, not propagated. - Edge cases the query engine keeps producing: empty result sets,
nullvs. missing, zero/negative pagination values, the field-path recursion cap (ADR-0008), unknown include paths, non-allowlisted filter fields. - Async: unawaited promises, transactions that can commit partially, ordering assumptions between pipeline stages.
- Type safety:
any, unchecked casts, and non-null assertions that paper over a real uncertainty.
Design invariants
- Registry-driven operations (ADR-0006) — operations come from the registry
and the engine loops over its entries. A
if (operation === "findMany")branch in the engine is a finding: it should be a registry entry or a handler. - One pipeline — standard operations go through the typed
DefaultKavoServicesurface, custom ones throughservice.engine.execute(...). A path that bypasses the engine is a finding. - Decoration-time routes (ADR-0012) — route generation happens when the class is defined. Anything that defers route registration breaks Nest's router scan. Check manual-method-wins still holds: a hand-written controller method whose name matches an operation id suppresses the generated route.
- Frozen after bootstrap — config precedence merge, DTO derivation and
registry construction all happen in
createCrud. Per-request mutation of resolved config is a finding. - Seams stay injected — handlers, serializer/deserializer, query normalizer, pagination strategies and the error handler are constructor-injected. Hard-coding one closes a documented seam.
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 · 167 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 8ee6ec24d172
kavo-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kavo-labs/kavo (17 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 2,197 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-02.
Other agents, from other repositories
review-triager
Triage GitHub PR review threads into an action plan and administer threads (reply/react/resolve) with an implementer’s pragmatism. Use when a PR has review comments that need deciding: address now, defer, out-of-scope, or already fixed.
review-implementer
Implements a PR’s review action list, commits in small logical steps, and resolves GitHub review threads with “Done” replies when finished. Use when review-actions.md exists for a PR.
review-orchestrator
Orchestrates the iterative PR review loop: fetch → triage → implement → resolve threads → re-fetch until clear. Use when a PR has active review.
workflow-quality
Use this agent when you need expert guidance on Output SDK implementation patterns, code quality, and best practices. Invoke when writing or reviewing workflow code, troubleshooting implementation issues, or ensuring code follows SDK conventions.
ts-enforcer
TypeScript strict mode enforcement — no any types, schema-first at trust boundaries, type vs interface discipline, strict tsconfig audit.
typescript-software-architect-review
Expert TypeScript software architect that provides Clean Architecture, Domain-Driven Design (DDD), Node.js patterns, and modern TypeScript frameworks guidance. Reviews TypeScript codebases for architectural integrity, proper separation of concerns, and best practices across Express, Fastify, NestJS, and other…