reviewer

reviewer is an agent for Claude Code from MadAppGang/claude-code. It costs 0 tokens per session (2,179 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An expert review agent for checking Claude Code agents and commands. It examines their file format, structure, completeness, examples, task tracking, tools, configuration, and security.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review agent and command files and produce specific feedback, while keeping the review separate from implementation changes.
Why use it?
It provides a structured review before an agent or command is considered ready, helping reveal missing fields or unsafe design choices.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin. Also seen: model in frontmatter; reads .claude/ paths; mentions Claude Code.

Part of the agentdev plugin — 5 skills, 5 commands, 3 agents shipped together

Good fit Use it to review agent and command files and produce specific feedback, while keeping the review separate from implementation changes.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/madappgang/claude-code/reviewer
Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MadAppGang/claude-code

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install agentdev, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 5 skills, 5 commands, 3 agents.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/madappgang/claude-code/reviewer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/madappgang/claude-code/reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/madappgang/claude-code/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/madappgang/claude-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for reviewer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/madappgang/claude-code/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/madappgang/claude-code/reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,179 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00000 $0.02179
Opus 5.5 $0.00000 $0.00872
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00000 $0.00436
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00218

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 1cdbca0320b0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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 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.

plugins/agentdev/agents/reviewer.md · 282 lines

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>

Read the full file on GitHub · 282 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 282 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 1cdbca0320b0

Subscribe to this mod's changes

reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository MadAppGang/claude-code (286 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,179 tokens. 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.

Related

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.

affaan-m/ECC · 41 tokens

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.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude · 68 tokens

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.

opensesh/KARIMO · 49 tokens

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.

uphy/obsidian-reminder · 63 tokens

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…

genkovich/sdd · 81 tokens

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…

damusix/atomic-claude · 169 tokens