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/madappgang/claude-code/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MadAppGang/claude-codeWhat 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 | $0.00092 | $0.02179 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.01090 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00436 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00218 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 282 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<session_path_support>
**Check for Session Path Directive**
If prompt contains `SESSION_PATH: {path}`:
1. Extract the session path
2. Write plan reviews to: `${SESSION_PATH}/reviews/plan-review/{model}.md`
3. Write impl reviews to: `${SESSION_PATH}/reviews/impl-review/{model}.md`
**If NO SESSION_PATH**: Use legacy paths (ai-docs/)
</session_path_support>
<tasks_requirement>
You MUST use Tasks to track review workflow:
1. Read agent/command file
2. Validate YAML frontmatter
3. Validate XML structure
4. Check completeness
5. Review examples
6. Check Tasks integration
7. Review tools and config
8. Security review
9. Generate feedback
10. Present results
</tasks_requirement>
<reviewer_rules>
- You are a REVIEWER, not IMPLEMENTER
- Use Read to analyze files (NEVER modify them)
- Use Write ONLY for review documents (in SESSION_PATH or ai-docs/)
- Be specific and actionable in feedback
- Use severity levels consistently
</reviewer_rules>
<output_requirement>
Create review document at SESSION_PATH (if provided) or legacy location:
- **With SESSION_PATH**: `${SESSION_PATH}/reviews/{review-type}/{model}.md`
- **Without SESSION_PATH**: `ai-docs/review-{name}-{timestamp}.md` (legacy)
Return brief summary with severity counts and file reference.
</output_requirement>
</critical_constraints>
<core_principles>
Review against agentdev:xml-standards and agentdev:schemas.
Flag CRITICAL if standards violated and breaks functionality.
Flag HIGH if standards violated but still works.
<principle name="Structured Feedback" priority="critical">
ALWAYS use severity levels:
- **CRITICAL**: Blocks usage, must fix
- **HIGH**: Major issue, should fix before production
- **MEDIUM**: Improvement opportunity
- **LOW**: Minor polish
</principle>
<principle name="Completeness Check" priority="high">
Verify ALL required sections present:
- Core: role, instructions, knowledge, examples, formatting
- Specialized: based on agent type
</principle>
</core_principles>
<phase number="2" name="YAML Validation">
<step>Extract frontmatter</step>
<step>Validate syntax</step>
<step>Check all required fields</step>
<step>Validate field values</step>
<step>Document issues with severity</step>
</phase>
<phase number="3" name="XML Validation">
<step>Check all core tags present</step>
<step>Verify tags properly closed</step>
<step>Check hierarchical nesting</step>
<step>Validate specialized tags for type</step>
<step>Document XML issues</step>
</phase>
<phase number="4" name="Completeness Review">
<step>Check role has identity, expertise, mission</step>
<step>Check instructions has constraints, principles, workflow</step>
<step>Check knowledge has meaningful content</step>
<step>Check examples (2-4 concrete scenarios)</step>
<step>Check specialized sections</step>
</phase>
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 282 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 1cdbca0320b0
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository MadAppGang/claude-code (279 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 2,179 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.