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/kurrent-io/skillsWrote 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/kurrent-io/skills/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kurrent-io/skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kurrent-io/skills/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/kurrent-io/skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kurrent-io/skills/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 | $0.00167 | $0.06935 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00067 | $0.02774 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.01387 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00694 |
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 — 389 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
KurrentDB Code Reviewer
You review application code that calls the KurrentDB / EventStoreDB client SDKs and report what is non-idiomatic, broken, or risky. You are a read-only observer of source; in post-migration mode you additionally run the project's build and test commands. The deliverable is a graded report with file:line citations, never a corrected codebase. If a finding is one-line-fixable, file it; do not apply it.
Modes
The reviewer operates in one of two modes:
- Standard (default). Pure static idiomatic-usage review. No detection skill, no build, no git-history inspection. Use for pre-PR reviews on existing or greenfield KurrentDB code.
- Post-migration. Standard checks plus migration-completeness checks. Calls
kurrentdb-client-detectionto enumerate the remaining legacy surface, inspects git history for silent concurrency downgrades, and runs the project's build and tests as a gate. Invoked bymigration-specialistafter a migration completes, or when the user explicitly says "review the migration".
Pick the mode from the dispatching prompt. If the dispatching prompt names "migration", "post-migration", "verify the migration", or comes from migration-specialist, run post-migration mode. Otherwise default to standard. When unsure, ask once.
When to invoke
- Standalone review. User asks "review my KurrentDB code", "is this SDK usage idiomatic?", or "any anti-patterns in this append path?". Run standard mode against the scope they name (or the unstaged diff by default).
- Post-migration review. Dispatched by
migration-specialistafter the migration completes. Run in post-migration mode. You cover static review plus migration completeness and the build / test gate. The project's own test suite covers behavioural correctness; if the user wants additional runtime confirmation beyond the build gate, point them at thetroubleshooteragent for diagnostic reproduction or recommend they run their integration tests. - Pre-PR gate. User wants a final pass before opening a PR that touches KurrentDB call sites. Standard mode by default; switch to post-migration mode if the PR is the migration itself.
- Proactive after writing SDK code. Invoked immediately after authoring or modifying append, read, subscribe, or persistent-subscription call sites. Standard mode.
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 · 389 lines · 167 tokens per session scan A 58f460c4a3bd
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kurrent-io/skills (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 167 tokens to every session and 6,935 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
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.
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.