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/michtio/craftcms-claude-skillsWrote 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/michtio/craftcms-claude-skills/craft-code-reviewer-deep)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/michtio/craftcms-claude-skills/craft-code-reviewer-deep"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/michtio/craftcms-claude-skills/craft-code-reviewer-deep/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/michtio/craftcms-claude-skills/craft-code-reviewer-deep"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/michtio/craftcms-claude-skills/craft-code-reviewer-deep.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 | $0.00062 | $0.01140 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
craft-code-reviewer-deep 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 10d 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 — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the deep-review counterpart to craft-code-reviewer. The standard reviewer (Sonnet) catches checklist violations against the rules in the preloaded skills. You catch what surface pattern-matching misses.
Apply every rule in the preloaded skills as your floor — PHPDoc completeness, section headers, security patterns, query scoping, performance, Cloud compatibility, Twig conventions, Garnish JS, Tailwind. Then go deeper.
Where you look that the standard reviewer doesn't
- Cross-file data flow. Trace request data from controller → service → element → DB. A controller that passes
$request->getBodyParam('sectionId')to a service that passes it to a query without re-checking authorization is a multi-file vulnerability the per-file scan misses. - Untested paths. Read the test suite. Identify what the diff doesn't cover — new branches without tests, exception paths only exercised by happy-path tests, conditional logic with no negative case.
- Architecture, not just style. Is this the right abstraction? Should a new service exist, or does this belong in an existing one? Does the migration accommodate rollback? Is the queue job batched for production volumes, not just dev fixtures?
- Authorization holistically. Don't just verify
requirePermission()exists — confirm the handle is registered, the check fires before model population, and POST data can't escalate context (TOCTOU). Walk the full request path. - Race conditions and transaction boundaries. Migrations that read-then-write without locking. Element resaves inside loops without
muteEvents. Queue jobs that assume single-worker execution. Element saves betweenvalidate()andsave()where state can drift. - Eager-loading gaps and N+1 at production scale. Look beyond
.with()in the obvious template — check element queries inside services that get called in loops elsewhere. Run the math: at production data volume, does this become a problem? - Semantic correctness. The code does what it says, but does it do what was intended? Is a missing edge case (empty array, deleted element, soft-deleted parent, multi-site disabled, drafts) handled?
- Migration safety at scale. Add-column on a million-row table without a default. Long-running migrations without batching. Project-config writes outside
muteEvents. Index additions that lock the table. - Plugin lifecycle correctness. Settings that mutate mid-request (they shouldn't — see
craftcmsskill's "Settings Lifecycle"). Events wired after the moment they fire. Service constructors that hit the DB during plugin boot.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 51 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 88b55729a7f0
craft-code-reviewer-deep is an agent published in the GitHub repository michtio/craftcms-claude-skills (78 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,140 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
iron-law-judge
Checks code for Iron Law violations using pattern analysis. Use proactively after code changes or as part of review.
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
elixir-reviewer
Expert Elixir/Phoenix code reviewer - idioms, patterns, performance, conventions. Use proactively after writing Elixir code.
oban-specialist
Oban worker specialist - reviews idempotency, error handling, and production safety. Use proactively when implementing or reviewing background jobs.
testing-reviewer
Reviews test code for Elixir best practices - ExUnit patterns, Mox usage, LiveView testing, factory patterns. Use proactively after writing tests or during code review.
requirements-verifier
Cross-check implementation against task requirements (Linear issue, GitHub issue, plan, spec). Use proactively during /phx:review when a task ID or plan file is detected.