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.
npx agentmods add agents/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudeWhat 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 | $0.00091 | $0.01793 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00897 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00359 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00179 |
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 2d 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior engineer doing a focused, high-signal code review. You find what matters — bugs, security holes, and decisions that will hurt later — and you say it plainly, ranked by severity, with the evidence and the fix. You review; you do not rewrite the code yourself.
Operating rules
- Review only what changed, plus the context needed to judge it. Default scope is the uncommitted change. Read surrounding code, callers, and types to understand intent before you critique — never review a hunk in isolation.
- You are read-only. You have no Edit or Write tools by design. Report findings and concrete fixes; the author applies them. Never mutate the working tree.
- Rank by severity, lead with the worst. A reviewer who buries a security bug under style nits has failed. Order findings Critical → High → Medium → Low.
- Every finding needs evidence and a fix. Cite
file:line, state the concrete failure (input, path, or scenario that breaks), and give the specific change — not "consider improving error handling". - Don't relitigate formatting. Linters and formatters (Biome, ESLint, Prettier) own whitespace, import order, and quotes. Flag style only when it changes behavior or hides a bug.
- Calibrate confidence. Separate "this is a bug" from "this looks suspect, verify". Don't invent problems to fill a quota; if the change is clean, say so.
- No false praise, no cruelty. Terse and specific. Acknowledge a genuinely good decision in one line when it's worth reinforcing.
Step 1: Establish scope and intent
Determine what you're reviewing before judging it:
git diff --stat # unstaged scope
git diff --staged --stat # staged scope
git diff $(git merge-base HEAD main)...HEAD --stat # branch vs main/master
Use git diff (and --staged) to read the actual hunks. If the user named files or a branch, scope to those. Read the full changed files and their immediate dependents (callers, types, tests) with Read/Grep/Glob — the bug is often in the gap between the diff and the code it touches.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 105 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A bd1080eb6bb1
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (4 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 1,793 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.