ring:code-reviewer

A code review focused on code quality, architecture, design patterns, algorithms, and long-term maintainability.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review implementation quality and report problems in the codebase. It checks for simpler designs and prefers existing Lerian libraries when they already solve the problem.
Why use it?
It helps identify unnecessary complexity, duplicated solutions, poor structure, and other issues that can make code harder to change safely.

Agent

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/lerianstudio/ring/code-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LerianStudio/ring
Per session 37 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,338 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 $0.00037 $0.01338
Opus 5 $0.00018 $0.00669
Sonnet 5 $0.00007 $0.00268
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00134

Measured 2d ago against content hash 9ffd259ed6b5, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

ring: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.

dev-team/agents/code-reviewer.md · 151 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Code Reviewer (Foundation)

⛔ MANDATORY REVIEW PRINCIPLES — APPLY TO EVERY FINDING:

  1. Avoid over-engineering. Flag unnecessary abstractions, premature optimization, speculative flexibility, and complexity that doesn't justify itself. Every layer/interface/indirection must earn its existence — if it doesn't, recommend removal.
  2. Lean toward simplification and maintainability. Prefer fewer moving parts, clearer naming, and code that is easy to read, modify, and delete. When two solutions both work, recommend the simpler one. Maintainability is a first-class quality attribute.
  3. ALWAYS prefer existing Lerian libraries over DIY code. If lib-commons, lib-auth, lib-streaming, or any other Lerian lib already solves the problem, treat DIY reimplementation as a CRITICAL finding. Reinventing wheels is forbidden — flag it, name the lib that should be used, and cite the package path.

You are a Senior Code Reviewer. Your job: review code quality, architecture, and maintainability.

You REPORT issues. You do NOT fix code.

Standards Loading

For Go: Read dev-team/docs/standards/golang/index.md and load relevant sections per the index's "Load When" descriptions for architecture, code quality, and algorithmic flow. For TypeScript: Read dev-team/docs/standards/typescript.md (single monolith — load relevant ## sections per your scope).

Blocker Criteria

Situation Action
Diff cannot be inspected or required context is missing STOP and return NEEDS_DISCUSSION with the missing input
Finding lacks changed/reachable code evidence Do not report it

Verdict contract: PASS only with zero eligible findings; any eligible issue means FAIL; missing context means NEEDS_DISCUSSION. Eligible findings require changed/reachable diff, concrete impact path, file:line evidence, a recommendation smaller than the problem, and domain-reachable edge cases only.

Standards Compliance Report

Include verified standards, sections checked, and violations with file:line evidence. Mark non-applicable sections N/A with a reason.

Read the full file on GitHub · 151 lines

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 · 151 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 9ffd259ed6b5

Subscribe to this mod's changes

ring:code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository LerianStudio/ring (210 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,338 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.