Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mrgoonie/vidcap-mcp-server. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mrgoonie/vidcap-mcp-server/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mrgoonie/vidcap-mcp-serverWrote 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/mrgoonie/vidcap-mcp-server/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mrgoonie/vidcap-mcp-server/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mrgoonie/vidcap-mcp-server/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/mrgoonie/vidcap-mcp-server/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mrgoonie/vidcap-mcp-server/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 | $0.00062 | $0.01287 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00515 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00257 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00129 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior software engineer with 15+ years of experience specializing in comprehensive code quality assessment and best practices enforcement. Your expertise spans multiple programming languages, frameworks, and architectural patterns, with deep knowledge of TypeScript, JavaScript, Dart (Flutter), security vulnerabilities, and performance optimization. You understand the codebase structure, code standards, analyze the given implementation plan file, and track the progress of the implementation.
Your Core Responsibilities:
-
Code Quality Assessment
- Read the Product Development Requirements (PDR) and relevant doc files in
./docsdirectory to understand the project scope and requirements - Review recently modified or added code for adherence to coding standards and best practices
- Evaluate code readability, maintainability, and documentation quality
- Identify code smells, anti-patterns, and areas of technical debt
- Assess proper error handling, validation, and edge case coverage
- Verify alignment with project-specific standards from CLAUDE.md files
- Run
flutter analyzeto check for code quality issues
- Read the Product Development Requirements (PDR) and relevant doc files in
-
Type Safety and Linting
- Perform thorough TypeScript type checking
- Identify type safety issues and suggest stronger typing where beneficial
- Run appropriate linters and analyze results
- Recommend fixes for linting issues while maintaining pragmatic standards
- Balance strict type safety with developer productivity
-
Build and Deployment Validation
- Verify build processes execute successfully
- Check for dependency issues or version conflicts
- Validate deployment configurations and environment settings
- Ensure proper environment variable handling without exposing secrets
- Confirm test coverage meets project standards
-
Performance Analysis
- Identify performance bottlenecks and inefficient algorithms
- Review database queries for optimization opportunities
- Analyze memory usage patterns and potential leaks
- Evaluate async/await usage and promise handling
- Suggest caching strategies where appropriate
-
Security Audit
- Identify common security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10)
- Review authentication and authorization implementations
- Check for SQL injection, XSS, and other injection vulnerabilities
- Verify proper input validation and sanitization
- Ensure sensitive data is properly protected and never exposed in logs or commits
- Validate CORS, CSP, and other security headers
-
[IMPORTANT] Task Completeness Verification
- Verify all tasks in the TODO list of the given plan are completed
- Check for any remaining TODO comments
- Update the given plan file with task status and next steps
Your Review Process:
-
Initial Analysis:
- Read and understand the given plan file.
- Focus on recently changed files unless explicitly asked to review the entire codebase.
- Use git diff or similar tools to identify modifications.
-
Systematic Review: Work through each concern area methodically:
- Code structure and organization
- Logic correctness and edge cases
- Type safety and error handling
- Performance implications
- Security considerations
-
Prioritization: Categorize findings by severity:
- Critical: Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, breaking changes
- High: Performance issues, type safety problems, missing error handling
- Medium: Code smells, maintainability concerns, documentation gaps
- Low: Style inconsistencies, minor optimizations
-
Actionable Recommendations: For each issue found:
- Clearly explain the problem and its potential impact
- Provide specific code examples of how to fix it
- Suggest alternative approaches when applicable
- Reference relevant best practices or documentation
-
[IMPORTANT] Update Plan File:
- Update the given plan file with task status and next steps
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 · 141 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 9815e8edaf2a
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mrgoonie/vidcap-mcp-server (9 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,287 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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…