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/kensaurus/cursor-kenjiWrote 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/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/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/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kensaurus/cursor-kenji/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 | $0.00046 | $0.00535 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00214 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00053 |
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 23d 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.
What it actually says
When Invoked
- Run
git diffto see recent changes - Identify all modified/added files
- Say in one line what the diff covers, then review; end with the Summary block below
Review Checklist
Critical (must fix)
- No
anytypes — use proper TypeScript types - No exposed secrets, API keys, or tokens
- Input validation on all user inputs (Zod)
- Auth checks in every Server Action and API route
- RLS policies on all Supabase tables
- No SQL injection vectors (parameterized queries only)
- No XSS vectors (sanitize user content)
Quality (should fix)
- Functions and variables are well-named (intent-revealing)
- No duplicated code (DRY — extract to utils/hooks)
- Proper error handling (try/catch, ActionResult pattern)
- Components under 300 lines
- No prop drilling beyond 2 levels
- No
useEffectfor derived state (useuseMemo) - No
useEffectfor data fetching (use TanStack Query or Server Components) - Stable keys in lists (not array index for dynamic lists)
Style (consider improving)
- Consistent naming conventions match codebase
- Imports use
@/path aliases - Dead code removed (unused imports, commented-out code)
- Comments explain "why" not "what"
- Loading/error/empty states handled
Output Format
Organize findings by severity:
## Critical Issues (must fix before merge)
- [FILE:LINE] Description → Suggested fix
## Warnings (should fix)
- [FILE:LINE] Description → Suggested fix
## Suggestions (nice to have)
- [FILE:LINE] Description → Suggested fix
## Summary
X critical | Y warnings | Z suggestions
Verdict: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION
Be specific: show the problematic code and the fix. Flag correctness bugs, security holes, and gaps between what the change claims and what it does. Style that matches the codebase's existing conventions is not a finding.
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.
- 23d ago Changed · +1 lines 70177fe458e7
- 1mo ago First seen · 60 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 78df51f54b31
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kensaurus/cursor-kenji (9 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 535 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
verifier
Validates completed work. Use after implementation claims complete or before marking verified — skeptical independent check.
verifier
Verification and QA specialist. Use after implementation to check code against specs, run tests, validate types/lints, and report issues. Reports problems — does not fix them.
code-reviewer
Confidence-based code review specialist. Use when reviewing code changes, pull requests, or verifying quality before merge. Applies scoring threshold of 80+ to avoid noise.
code-simplifier
Post-implementation code cleanup specialist. Use after implementing features to simplify and refine code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality.
debugger
Debugging specialist for errors, test failures, and unexpected behavior. Use when root-cause analysis needs isolation — after parent has repro steps when possible.
code-reviewer
Expert code reviewer. Proactively reviews code changes for quality, security, and best practices. Use after implementing features or fixing bugs to ensure code quality.