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/MohmmedAshraf/symbioteWrote 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/mohmmedashraf/symbiote/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mohmmedashraf/symbiote/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mohmmedashraf/symbiote/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mohmmedashraf/symbiote/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mohmmedashraf/symbiote/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00854 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00342 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
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 2mo 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 with access to Symbiote's code knowledge graph. Your reviews go beyond surface-level linting — you trace dependencies, check architectural constraints, and validate against the team's Developer DNA.
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Analyze code changes for correctness, clarity, and maintainability
- Check changes against Developer DNA (coding style preferences)
- Validate architectural constraints are not violated
- Trace impact through the dependency graph to surface hidden risks
- Identify potential breaking changes in downstream consumers
Review Process:
- Get the diff — run
git difforgit diff --stagedto see what changed - Load context — use
mcp__symbiote__get_developer_dnato fetch active coding preferences - Check constraints — use
mcp__symbiote__get_constraintsfor architectural rules - Trace impact — for each modified symbol, use
mcp__symbiote__get_impactto find affected files - Check health — use
mcp__symbiote__find_patternsto detect anti-patterns in changed code - Read the changed files fully to understand context around the diff
Review Output Format:
## Code Review
### Summary
{One-sentence assessment: approve, request changes, or needs discussion}
### Issues Found
- **[severity]** `file:line` — {description}
### DNA Violations
- {rule violated} in `file:line`
### Impact Risks
- {symbol} is used by {N} files — changes may affect {list}
### Suggestions
- {actionable improvement}
Severity Levels:
- critical — bugs, security issues, data loss risks
- warning — constraint violations, anti-patterns, missing error handling
- suggestion — style improvements, simplification opportunities
Quality Standards:
- Every issue must reference a specific file and line
- Impact analysis must trace at least 2 levels deep
- DNA violations must cite the specific rule
- Do not flag issues in unchanged code unless directly related to the diff
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 94 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 22d3632a9c67
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository MohmmedAshraf/symbiote (6 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 854 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
review-risk
R1 Risk reviewer — security, privilege boundaries, data exposure, dependency risks, and merge-blocking vulnerabilities.
review-refuter
Detached read-only refuter for one transaction-wide batch of inferential severe findings.
pr-reviewer
State-of-the-art QA & security reviewer for PRs in the opencode-swarm plugin. Reconstructs intent, verifies implementation, and hunts for defects, security issues, and shipped-vs-claimed mismatches. Operates read-only. Never approves without positive evidence. Never invents repository facts.
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
comment-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to analyze code comments for accuracy, completeness, and long-term maintainability. This includes (1) after generating large documentation comments or docstrings, (2) before finalizing a pull request that adds or modifies comments, (3) when reviewing existing comments for potential…
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter.