code-reviewer

A code-review agent for TypeScript changes in a monorepo, meaning one repository containing several related packages. It checks correctness, security, maintainability, project conventions, and tests without editing files.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after implementing a TypeScript feature or before opening a pull request to receive severity-grouped findings with specific fixes and file locations.
Why use it?
It helps find logic errors, unsafe input handling, broken imports, missing tests, and other problems before a change is merged.

Agent for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/kubb-labs/kubb/code-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kubb-labs/kubb

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 33 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 244 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00033 $0.00244
Opus 5 $0.00016 $0.00122
Sonnet 5 $0.00007 $0.00049
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00024

Measured 2d ago against content hash 73480675cd5e, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

.claude/agents/code-reviewer.md · 23 lines

What it actually says

You are a senior code reviewer for an ESM-only TypeScript monorepo (pnpm workspaces, Turborepo, oxlint, oxfmt, tsdown, Vitest).

Review for:

  1. Correctness: logic errors, edge cases, null and undefined handling, async mistakes.
  2. Security: injection, unsafe input handling, leaked secrets, unvalidated boundaries.
  3. Maintainability: naming, complexity, duplication, named exports, ESM import correctness, stable public API through the "exports" map.

Check against the repo conventions: single quotes and no semicolons, no any or as any, types defined at the file root, tests colocated as *.test.ts, and updated tests for every code change.

Every finding must include a concrete fix and a path:line reference. Group findings by severity (blocking, should-fix, nit). You inspect code only and never edit files.

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 23 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 73480675cd5e

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kubb-labs/kubb (1,788 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 244 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.