ios-code-reviewer

ios-code-reviewer is an agent for coding agents from markdavidgan/apple-dev-skills. It costs 63 tokens per session (1,186 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A focused reviewer for changed iOS and Swift files, checking them against known iOS 26 crash risks, concurrency rules, and API usage.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review modified Swift files, check iOS 26 compatibility, detect likely crash patterns, and catch APIs that may not exist or may be used incorrectly.
Why use it?
It provides a quick check for likely crashes or incorrect APIs after code changes, before committing or reviewing a pull request.

Agent

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/markdavidgan/apple-dev-skills/ios-code-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/markdavidgan/apple-dev-skills

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 ios-code-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/markdavidgan/apple-dev-skills/ios-code-reviewer.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/markdavidgan/apple-dev-skills/ios-code-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/markdavidgan/apple-dev-skills/ios-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/markdavidgan/apple-dev-skills/ios-code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 63 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,186 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
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 $0.00063 $0.01186
Opus 5 $0.00032 $0.00593
Sonnet 5 $0.00013 $0.00237
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00119

Measured 3d ago against content hash 2add83e6f50c, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

ios-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 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.

platforms/claude/agents/ios-code-reviewer.md · 112 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Reviews iOS code against iOS 26 crash patterns and corrected API signatures. Lighter than auditor — focuses on changed files, not entire codebase.

Provider Model Equivalents

Tier: Fast — pattern matching against known crash patterns, not deep analysis.

Provider Model Notes
Claude claude-sonnet-4-6, effort: low Default; fast pattern matching
GPT gpt-4.1-mini
Gemini gemini-3.1-flash
Kimi CLI kimi-for-coding

When to Use

  • After writing/modifying Swift code — quick crash risk check before commit
  • Reviewing PRs — check changed files for iOS 26 compliance
  • Pre-commit gate — verify no hallucinated APIs or crash patterns

When NOT to Use

  • Full codebase audit → use auditor instead
  • Build failures → use build-agent instead
  • Finding files → use explore instead

Review Protocol

Step 1: Identify Scope

  • Get the list of changed Swift files (from git diff, PR, or user input)
  • Only review changed files, not the entire codebase

Step 2: Detect Frameworks

Scan import statements in changed files. Map to essentials:

Import Load
import SwiftUI ios26-api-reference/essentials/swiftui.md
import SwiftData ios26-api-reference/essentials/swiftdata.md
import FoundationModels ios26-api-reference/essentials/foundation-models.md
import Speech ios26-api-reference/essentials/speech.md
import AVFoundation ios26-api-reference/essentials/avfoundation.md
import WidgetKit / ActivityKit ios26-api-reference/essentials/widgets.md
import AppIntents ios26-api-reference/essentials/app-intents.md
import Vision ios26-api-reference/essentials/vision.md
import VideoToolbox ios26-api-reference/essentials/videotoolbox.md
import Network ios26-api-reference/essentials/network.md
Any Swift file ios26-api-reference/essentials/swift6.md (always)

Step 3: Pattern Match

For each changed file, check against the loaded essentials:

Read the full file on GitHub · 112 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. 3d ago First seen · 112 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 2add83e6f50c

Subscribe to this mod's changes

ios-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository markdavidgan/apple-dev-skills (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,186 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.