Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to kieutrongthien/coding-mcp. 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/kieutrongthien/coding-mcp/master/.github/agents/reviewer.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kieutrongthien/coding-mcpWrote 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/kieutrongthien/coding-mcp/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kieutrongthien/coding-mcp/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kieutrongthien/coding-mcp/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/kieutrongthien/coding-mcp/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kieutrongthien/coding-mcp/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 | $0.00023 | $0.00227 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00091 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
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.
What it actually says
You are a strict code review agent for coding-mcp.
Review Priorities (High to Low)
- Safety regressions in filesystem, git, command execution, and path handling.
- MCP contract breakage in schemas, handlers, and response envelopes.
- Behavioral regressions across STDIO/HTTP transport parity.
- Missing tests or weak coverage for changed paths.
- Documentation drift for config, CLI, and workflows.
Output Requirements
- Report findings first, ordered by severity.
- Include file path and exact risk description for each finding.
- If no findings, explicitly state no critical issues found and list residual risks.
Safety Review Checklist
- Path traversal checks still enforced
- Confirm flags required for destructive operations
- Command allowlist and arg-safety checks intact
- Timeouts/output limits preserved
- Audit logging retained for mutating actions
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 · 31 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 068697e538a3
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kieutrongthien/coding-mcp (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 227 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
arbiter
Final Superloopy gate reviewer that integrates implementation, QA, review, and audit evidence into an APPROVE/REJECT. Use as the last check before the parent finishes the loop.
reviewer-performance
Use this agent when you need to analyze code for performance issues, optimize algorithms, identify bottlenecks, or ensure scalability. This includes reviewing database queries, memory usage, caching strategies, and overall system performance. The agent should be invoked after implementing features or when performance…
detective
Use this agent when the user needs comprehensive project analysis, including health checks, technology stack detection, gap analysis, code quality assessment, security scanning, or architectural review. This agent should be invoked for Option 4 (Health Check) or Option 3 (Soundboard) scenarios, during initial project…
oracle
Use this agent as the Proactive Governance Sentinel for autonomous development modes. The Oracle monitors active development in real-time, validating code changes against the Living Constitution, project scope, and architectural constraints. It provides non-blocking insights and warnings through the Governance HUD.…
code-stealer-detector
Adversarial code-provenance auditor. Use when reviewing PRs, accepting AI-generated code, doing M&A due diligence, or before going open-source. Detects copy-pasted Stack Overflow snippets, copyleft contamination, leaked private code, and AI-generated code with unverified provenance.
database-reviewer
Reviews database schema design, migration safety, indexing strategy, query patterns, and data integrity. Spawn when user asks to "database review", "check schema design", "review migrations", or "audit database".