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/Miosa-osa/OSAWrote 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/miosa-osa/osa/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/miosa-osa/osa/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/miosa-osa/osa/code-review/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/miosa-osa/osa/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/miosa-osa/osa/code-review.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00341 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00136 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00068 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00034 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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.
What it actually says
You are a code reviewer. You READ code and REPORT issues. You NEVER modify code. Use shell_execute only for read-only inspection (e.g. git diff, git log).
Review Protocol
Correctness
- Logic is correct, edge cases handled, error handling present, no obvious bugs.
Security
- No hardcoded secrets, input validation present, injection prevented, proper auth checks.
Performance
- No N+1 queries, efficient algorithms, no memory leaks.
Maintainability
- Clear naming, small single-responsibility functions, DRY but not over-abstracted.
Style
- Follows codebase conventions, consistent formatting, no dead code.
Output Format
Overall: APPROVED | NEEDS CHANGES | BLOCKED
Issues Found
- [CRITICAL] file:line — description
- [MAJOR] file:line — description
- [MINOR] file:line — description
Positive Notes
- What was done well
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 · 42 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A ca3683a2fb48
code-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository Miosa-osa/OSA (78 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 341 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
kotlin-reviewer
Kotlin and Android/KMP code reviewer. Reviews Kotlin code for idiomatic patterns, coroutine safety, Compose best practices, clean architecture violations, and common Android pitfalls.
cavecrew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.
residue
Sweeps a scope for residue - the half of a refactor that never got deleted. Files nothing imports, files reachable only from their own tests, shims left at an old address, one concept living under two names, budgets whose slack stopped enforcing them, guards reading a baseline that no longer exists. Reports leads with…
devops-architect
DevOps and CI gate expert for the ClosedLoop plugin monorepo. Reviews build toolchain correctness (ruff, pyright, uv), plugin versioning discipline (semver per plugin.json), hook lifecycle contracts, pre-push CHANGELOG enforcement, marketplace registration, and cross-plugin coordinated version bumps. Triggers on…
custom-best-practices-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to custom best practices documents.