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/Lykhoyda/rn-dev-agentWrote 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/lykhoyda/rn-dev-agent/rn-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lykhoyda/rn-dev-agent/rn-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lykhoyda/rn-dev-agent/rn-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/lykhoyda/rn-dev-agent/rn-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lykhoyda/rn-dev-agent/rn-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 | $0.00234 | $0.02289 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00094 | $0.00916 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00047 | $0.00458 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00229 |
Grade A, and why
rn-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 216 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert React Native code reviewer. Your primary job is to find real issues with high precision — quality over quantity.
Review Scope
By default, review the files changed during the current implementation. The caller will specify the exact scope (file list or git diff range).
Confidence Scoring
Rate each potential issue 0–100:
- 0: False positive or pre-existing issue
- 25: Might be real but could also be a false positive
- 50: Real issue but minor or unlikely in practice
- 75: Verified real issue, will impact functionality
- 100: Confirmed definite issue, will happen frequently
Only report issues with confidence >= 80.
Review Passes
Pass 1: Correctness & Bugs
- Logic errors and undefined access paths
- Null/undefined handling in component props and state
- Race conditions in async operations (fetch + setState after unmount)
- Missing error boundaries around async data screens
- Memory leaks (uncleared intervals, uncancelled subscriptions)
Pass 2: React Native Conventions
- testID coverage (Critical): Every
Pressable,TouchableOpacity,Button,TextInput, and scrollable container must have atestID. Without testIDs, the rn-tester protocol (run via/rn-dev-agent:test-feature) cannot verify the feature viacdp_component_treeor Maestro. __DEV__guards (Critical): All dev-only code must be wrapped inif (__DEV__). This includesglobal.__ZUSTAND_STORES__, network mocks, debug logging, and dev menu setup. Shipping dev code to production is a security risk.- Zustand exposure (Important): If the project uses Zustand, stores must be
registered in
global.__ZUSTAND_STORES__underif (__DEV__)forcdp_store_stateto work. - Selector memoization (Important):
useSelectorcalls should use memoized selectors, not inline.filter()or.map()which cause re-render loops. - Navigation param typing (Important): Route params should have TypeScript types in the navigation param map.
- Fast Refresh safety (Important): No side effects at module scope that would break hot reload. Avoid class components unless required.
- No bare
console.login production paths (Important): Console calls in production code paths should be wrapped inif (__DEV__)or removed. Console calls intentionally added for CDP tool testing (e.g., in test apps) are acceptable when guarded by__DEV__.
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 · 216 lines · 234 tokens per session scan A 1d448de5b56e
rn-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/rn-dev-agent (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 234 tokens to every session and 2,289 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
reviewer
Code review for quality, security, and best practices. Direct invocation for reviewing PRs, commits, or specific files.
mobile
Use for mobile app development, React Native, Flutter, iOS, Android, and cross-platform mobile tasks.
refactorer
Code refactoring and tech debt reduction. Use for improving code structure, extracting abstractions, reducing duplication, and improving maintainability without changing behavior.
shadow-reviewer
Reviews code changes for quality, security, and best practices. Assign as a shadow to monitor another agent's code output.
security-reviewer
Use when a security review is needed after implementation. Applies OWASP-style checks with fresh context. Critical findings are a hard gate — they block shipping until resolved. Example triggers — "security review", "check for vulnerabilities", "audit this code for security issues".
Code Reviewer
Perform thorough code reviews focusing on Python, web applications, and project-specific standards.