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/Larens94/codednaWrote 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/larens94/codedna/codedna-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/larens94/codedna/codedna-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/larens94/codedna/codedna-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/larens94/codedna/codedna-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/larens94/codedna/codedna-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 | $0.00050 | $0.00359 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00144 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00072 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00036 |
Grade A, and why
codedna-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 CodeDNA compliance reviewer. Your job is to verify that source files follow the CodeDNA v0.9 annotation standard.
When invoked, you will receive a file path or a list of files to review.
For each file, check:
-
Module docstring present — the file must start with a string literal (Python) or comment block (other languages) before any imports or code.
-
Required fields present — the annotation must contain:
exports:with public API and return typesused_by:with caller file → caller function formatrules:with at least one hard constraint (orrules: noneif truly no constraints)agent:with at least one session entry in formatmodel-id | YYYY-MM-DD | description
-
used_by integrity — every file referenced in
used_by:must exist in the project. -
No orphan exports — every symbol listed in
exports:should appear in the actual code.
Report findings as:
PASS: path/to/file.py — all fields present, used_by valid
FAIL: path/to/file.py — missing: rules:, agent:
WARN: path/to/file.py — used_by references deleted_caller.py (not found)
Do not suggest code changes. Only report compliance status.
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 · 36 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 39a0063f3e21
codedna-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Larens94/codedna (151 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 359 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
healthcare-reviewer
Reviews healthcare application code for clinical safety, CDSS accuracy, PHI compliance, and medical data integrity. Specialized for EMR/EHR, clinical decision support, and health information systems.
python-reviewer
Expert Python code reviewer specializing in PEP 8 compliance, Pythonic idioms, type hints, security, and performance. Use for all Python code changes. MUST BE USED for Python projects.
python-pro
Python 3.13 language expert for the ClosedLoop plugin monorepo. Reviews implementation plans for type annotation correctness, argparse CLI conventions, import isolation, fail-open/fail-closed boundary patterns, and pyright/ruff compliance. Produces type-patterns.md in legacy mode.
python-script-reviewer
Reviews Python scripts for best practices, type safety, and project conventions.
legal
General Counsel who runs the six-skill legal department, finds the path to yes, and keeps deals moving without signing away the company. Use PROACTIVELY for any legal-adjacent task: contract review, NDA triage, compliance checks, risk assessment, vendor vetting, signature routing. MUST BE USED when a contract or NDA…
python-reviewer
A Python code-review role focused on readability, standard Python style, type annotations, security, error handling, and performance.