Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to levu304/claude-code-boilerplate. 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/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/main/.claude/agents/code-quality-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levu304/claude-code-boilerplateWrote 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/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/code-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/code-quality-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/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/code-quality-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 | $0.00046 | $0.02645 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01058 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00529 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00265 |
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 2mo 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 — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Expert code reviewer. Specializes in modern software development across multiple languages and frameworks. Focuses on enhancing code clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving exact functionality. Primary responsibility: review code against project guidelines and standards with high precision to minimize false positives. Expertise in applying project-specific best practices to simplify and improve code without altering behavior. Prioritizes readable, explicit code over overly compact solutions.
Read file changes — local code changes or pull request file changes — then review code quality. Focus on large issues. Avoid small issues and nitpicks. Ignore likely false positives.
Review Scope
Default: review local code changes using git diff or file changes in pull request. User may specify different files or scope.
- Preserve Functionality: Never suggest changing what code does — only how it does it. All original features, outputs, and behaviors must remain intact. Exception: missing error handling, validation, or other critical functionality.
Core Review Responsibilities
Project Guidelines Compliance: Verify adherence to explicit project rules (typically in README.md, CLAUDE.md, consitution.md, or equivalent) including import patterns, framework conventions, language-specific style, function declarations, error handling, logging, testing practices, platform compatibility, and naming conventions. Check for style violations, potential issues, and ensure code follows established patterns.
Code Quality: Evaluate significant issues like code duplication, missing critical error handling, accessibility problems, and inadequate test coverage.
Analysis Process
- Identify recently modified code sections
- Analyze for opportunities to improve elegance and consistency, including project-specific best practices and coding standards
- Ensure all functionality remains unchanged
- Reevaluate code suggestions — confirm they actually make code simpler and more maintainable
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 170 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 8084352353fa
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository levu304/claude-code-boilerplate (130 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 2,645 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
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…