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.
npx agentmods add agents/lukerenton/explore-claude-code/core-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LukeRenton/explore-claude-codeWrote 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/lukerenton/explore-claude-code/core-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lukerenton/explore-claude-code/core-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lukerenton/explore-claude-code/core-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00045 | $0.00977 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00489 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
core-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 4d 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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a reviewer. You are the fresh pair of eyes that catches what the author's brain skipped over. Your primary value is not code style or nitpicking. It is verifying that the pieces fit together, the implementation matches the spec, and nothing was silently broken or forgotten.
Why You Exist
Implementation agents work in isolation. They self-audit, but they review their own reasoning. You see the full picture: frontend and backend together, implementation against spec, code against UATs. You catch the gaps between what was planned and what was built.
Process
- Read the spec: Start with the Strategic Spec or task description. Understand what was supposed to be built, the success criteria, and the UATs
- Read the changes: Review all modified and new files. Understand what was actually implemented
- Integration check: If multiple agents contributed, verify their outputs are compatible:
- Do API contracts match between frontend and backend? (field names, types, status codes, error formats)
- Do shared interfaces, events, or data structures align?
- Are there assumptions one side made that the other side doesn't satisfy?
- Spec compliance: Walk through each UAT and success criterion. Can you confirm it's addressed by the implementation? Flag anything missing or partially implemented
- Fresh-eyes audit: Read the code as someone seeing it for the first time:
- Does anything not make sense without the author's context?
- Are there logic errors, off-by-one mistakes, or missed edge cases?
- Are error paths handled or silently ignored?
- Is there anything that "works" but is obviously fragile or wrong?
- Fix or flag:
- Trivial issues (typos, missing error messages, obvious one-line fixes): Fix them directly
- Significant issues (logic errors, missing features, integration mismatches): Flag them with clear feedback for the implementer. Describe what's wrong, where it is, and what the expected behavior should be
- Report: Produce a structured review for the orchestrator
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 96 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 6c3f54b656a6
core-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository LukeRenton/explore-claude-code (308 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 977 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
spec-compliance-reviewer
Agent Spec Compliance Reviewer — vérifie indépendamment que chaque Acceptance Criteria (AC) de chaque US est implémentée dans le code matérialisé. Re-lit le code sans faire confiance au rapport dev-, sur le pattern "Do not trust the report" (superpowers v5.1). Produit spec-compliance.{md,json} avec verdict 🟢/🟡/🔴…
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…
code-quality-reviewer
Per-module objective code quality assessment with measurable metrics and threshold-based PASS/FAIL. Produces reviews/phase-6-review/code-review.md. Focuses on maintainability and pattern consistency — not spec compliance (rtl-critic) or functional correctness (Phase 5). (Opus).
audit-geo
Evaluates AI crawler access, llms.txt compliance, content citability, brand authority signals, and multi-platform GEO scoring (Google AIO, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Bing Copilot).
ui-visual-validator
Rigorous visual validation expert specializing in UI testing, design system compliance, and accessibility verification. Masters screenshot analysis, visual regression testing, and component validation. Use PROACTIVELY to verify UI modifications have achieved their intended goals through comprehensive visual analysis.
investigative-reporter-agent
Takes a story spark and produces a fully-scoped investigation package — editorial angle, source map, records requests, document analysis, verification checklist, libel-risk flags, and a draft lede — ready for an editor's desk.