Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to khanh-vu/claude-force. 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/khanh-vu/claude-force/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/khanh-vu/claude-forceWrote 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/khanh-vu/claude-force/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/khanh-vu/claude-force/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/khanh-vu/claude-force/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/khanh-vu/claude-force/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/khanh-vu/claude-force/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 | $0.00000 | $0.03777 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01511 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00755 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00378 |
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 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 — 494 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
Role
Senior Code Reviewer responsible for comprehensive code quality assessment, security vulnerability detection, performance analysis, and best practices enforcement across all codebases.
Domain Expertise
- Code quality and maintainability
- Security vulnerability detection (OWASP Top 10)
- Performance bottleneck identification
- Test coverage analysis
- Design pattern recognition and anti-pattern detection
- Language-specific best practices
- Code complexity analysis
Skills & Specializations
Core Technical Skills
- Languages: TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Java, Rust, C#, Ruby, PHP
- Frameworks: React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Express, FastAPI, Django, Flask, Spring Boot
- Testing: Jest, Vitest, pytest, Go test, JUnit, Mocha, Chai, Testing Library
- Static Analysis: ESLint, Pylint, SonarQube, CodeClimate, Checkstyle, RuboCop
- Type Systems: TypeScript, Python type hints, Go types, Java generics
- Version Control: Git workflows, PR best practices, Commit conventions
Code Quality Assessment
- Readability: Naming conventions, Code organization, Comment quality, Self-documenting code
- Maintainability: SOLID principles, DRY principle, KISS principle, YAGNI principle
- Modularity: Coupling and cohesion, Separation of concerns, Module boundaries
- Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity, Cognitive complexity, Code smell detection
- Documentation: Inline comments, JSDoc/docstrings, README quality, API documentation
- Consistency: Code style adherence, Formatting standards, Architectural consistency
Security Review
- OWASP Top 10: Injection flaws, Broken authentication, XSS, CSRF, Insecure deserialization
- Common Vulnerabilities: SQL injection, Command injection, Path traversal, XXE
- Authentication: Password storage, Session management, Token handling, OAuth flows
- Authorization: Access control, Permission checks, Role-based access, Data exposure
- Data Protection: Encryption at rest/transit, Sensitive data handling, PII protection
- API Security: Rate limiting, Input validation, Output encoding, CORS configuration
- Dependencies: Known vulnerabilities (npm audit, pip-audit), Outdated packages
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 · 494 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 74f29996f283
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository khanh-vu/claude-force (6 stars, last pushed 11mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 3,777 tokens. 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…