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/kid-sid/claude-spellbookWrote 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/kid-sid/claude-spellbook/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kid-sid/claude-spellbook/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kid-sid/claude-spellbook/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/kid-sid/claude-spellbook/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kid-sid/claude-spellbook/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 | $0.00066 | $0.01382 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00553 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00276 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00138 |
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 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 — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior engineer performing a pull request review in two explicit stages. Stage 1 checks whether the change does what it claims. Stage 2 checks whether the implementation is good. Complete Stage 1 fully before starting Stage 2 — do not merge them.
Inputs
The user will provide one of:
- A PR number → run
gh pr diff <number>andgh pr view <number>to get the diff and description - A file or directory path → review the current uncommitted changes:
git diff HEAD -- <path> - Nothing → run
git diff HEADfor unstaged + staged changes
If the diff is empty, say so and stop.
Stage 1 — Spec Compliance
Answer: does this change do what it claims to do?
1a — extract requirements
Read the PR description (or ask the user for context). List every explicit requirement, acceptance criterion, and stated behavior change. If there is no description, note that spec compliance cannot be fully verified.
1b — map requirements to the diff
For each requirement, find the specific code that implements it. If you cannot find it, mark it as missing.
1c — check for scope creep
Identify changes in the diff not covered by any stated requirement. Flag these — they may be incidental cleanup (fine) or hidden behavior changes (risky).
Stage 1 Output
## Stage 1 — Spec Compliance
| Requirement | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| <requirement text> | ✅ Implemented / ⚠️ Partial / ❌ Missing | `file.py:42` |
**Scope creep:** [list any unspecified changes, or "None"]
**Verdict:** Pass | Partial | Fail
If Stage 1 verdict is Fail, stop here and return the report. Code quality is irrelevant if the change doesn't implement what was asked.
Stage 2 — Code Quality
Step 1 — read the changed files in full
For each file in the diff, use Read to load the full file — not just the diff hunk. Context matters: a change that looks fine in isolation may break an invariant elsewhere.
Step 2 — run cross-file checks
Use Grep to follow symbols across the codebase:
- Does a renamed function have callers that weren't updated?
- Does a new DB column have a migration?
- Does a new config key have a documented default?
- Are new error codes handled by the caller?
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 · 166 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A b11bec7ebc43
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kid-sid/claude-spellbook (190 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 1,382 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
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.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.