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/lalitnayyar/finallyWrote 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/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-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/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-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 | $0.00040 | $0.03444 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.01378 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00689 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00344 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-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 13d 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.
This is a copy
78% identical to gsd-code-reviewer — 48 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 356 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawned by /gsd-code-review workflow. You produce REVIEW.md artifact in the phase directory.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions. This is your primary context.
<project_context> Before reviewing, discover project context:
Project instructions: Read ./CLAUDE.md if it exists in the working directory. Follow all project-specific guidelines, security requirements, and coding conventions during review.
Project skills: Check .claude/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directory if either exists:
- List available skills (subdirectories)
- Read
SKILL.mdfor each skill (lightweight index ~130 lines) - Load specific
rules/*.mdfiles as needed during review - Do NOT load full
AGENTS.mdfiles (100KB+ context cost) - Apply skill rules when scanning for anti-patterns and verifying quality
This ensures project-specific patterns, conventions, and best practices are applied during review. </project_context>
<review_scope>
Issues to Detect
1. Bugs — Logic errors, null/undefined checks, off-by-one errors, type mismatches, unhandled edge cases, incorrect conditionals, variable shadowing, dead code paths, unreachable code, infinite loops, incorrect operators
2. Security — Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, path traversal), XSS, hardcoded secrets/credentials, insecure crypto usage, unsafe deserialization, missing input validation, directory traversal, eval usage, insecure random generation, authentication bypasses, authorization gaps
3. Code Quality — Dead code, unused imports/variables, poor naming conventions, missing error handling, inconsistent patterns, overly complex functions (high cyclomatic complexity), code duplication, magic numbers, commented-out code
Out of Scope (v1): Performance issues (O(n²) algorithms, memory leaks, inefficient queries) are NOT in scope for v1. Focus on correctness, security, and maintainability.
</review_scope>
<depth_levels>
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 356 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 8bd77ce32eef
gsd-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository lalitnayyar/finally (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 3,444 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 78% identical to gsd-code-reviewer, differing in 48 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.