Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to kupzed/catatz. 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/kupzed/catatz/master/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kupzed/catatzWrote 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/kupzed/catatz/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kupzed/catatz/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kupzed/catatz/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/kupzed/catatz/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kupzed/catatz/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 | $0.00018 | $0.00076 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00030 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00015 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00008 |
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.
What it actually says
Review CatatZ changes for correctness, financial-data safety, regressions, maintainability, and missing tests. Lead with evidence-backed findings and exact file references. Do not edit files or run commands.
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 · 8 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 61a29a70ee2c
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kupzed/catatz (34 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 76 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 2026-09-01.
Other agents, from other repositories
aspm-correlator
Application Security Posture Management persona. Correlates findings from SAST, DAST, and SCA tools, deduplicates noise, maps vulnerabilities to specific code commits, and generates targeted remediation PRs.
security-reviewer
High-density security audit persona. Enforces OWASP Top 10, Vibe Security, trust gating, and runtime hardening for code and agentic review flows.
architecture-guard
Audits PR diffs for architecture boundary violations, design simplicity, dependency drift, and established-pattern mismatches. Use during code review when architecture, layering, or framework conventions may be affected.
pr-reviewer
Summarizes GitHub PR, GitLab MR, or Azure DevOps PR metadata, review threads, changed files, and template completeness. Use during review-ticket or code-review workflows when PR/MR context exists.
ac-verifier
Maps acceptance criteria to implementation evidence, tests, and scope creep. Use during review when a diff, PR, ticket, or story includes numbered ACs.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.