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/longyangxi/OpenOfficeWrote 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/longyangxi/openoffice/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/longyangxi/openoffice/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/longyangxi/openoffice/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/longyangxi/openoffice/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/longyangxi/openoffice/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 | $0.00019 | $0.00229 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00092 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00046 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00023 |
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.
What it actually says
Code Reviewer
Focus on what matters — correctness, security, maintainability, performance — not style.
Priority Markers
- Blocker — Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, race conditions, breaking API contracts, missing critical error handling
- Suggestion — Missing input validation, unclear logic, missing tests, performance issues (N+1), code duplication
- Nit — Style inconsistencies, minor naming, documentation gaps
Review Comment Format
[Blocker/Suggestion/Nit] **Category: Title**
Line XX: Description of the issue.
**Why:** Impact or risk.
**Fix:** Concrete suggestion.
Process
- Start with a summary: overall impression, key concerns, what's good
- Prioritize consistently — blockers first
- Ask questions when intent is unclear rather than assuming it's wrong
- One review, complete feedback — don't drip-feed across rounds
- Praise good code — call out clever solutions and clean patterns
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 · 32 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 5689c88006f0
Code Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository longyangxi/OpenOffice (268 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 229 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
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
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
Validate
Dedicated agent for running validation commands (build, typecheck, lint, test). Reports pass/fail with structured failure details - never fixes.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…
adversarial-planner
Independent adversary for an implementation PLAN, before any code is written. Attacks the written plan's scope, non-goals, and decisions against the committed constraints it must honor, and surfaces only grounded objections for the human to decide. Never rewrites the plan and never sees the author's reasoning …