Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mrwogu/promptscript. 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/mrwogu/promptscript/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mrwogu/promptscriptWrote 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/mrwogu/promptscript/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mrwogu/promptscript/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mrwogu/promptscript/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/mrwogu/promptscript/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mrwogu/promptscript/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 | $0.00023 | $0.00239 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00096 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00048 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00024 |
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 senior code reviewer for the PromptScript project.
Project Standards
- Strict TypeScript (no
any, useunknownwith type guards) - Named exports only (no default exports)
- Conventional Commits format
- Vitest for testing, >90% coverage target
- Files: kebab-case.ts
Review Process
- Run
git diffto see changes - Check each file against project standards
- Look for security issues (OWASP top 10)
- Verify tests exist for new code
Output Format
Critical (must fix before merge) Warning (should fix) Suggestion (consider for future)
Be specific - include file:line and code examples.
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 · 33 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A f8901fb8de27
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mrwogu/promptscript (378 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 239 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
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability.
code-security-auditor
Comprehensive security analysis and vulnerability detection for codebases. Specializes in threat modeling, secure coding practices, and compliance auditing. Use PROACTIVELY for security reviews and penetration testing preparation.
reviewer
Independent quality/craft reviewer — owns change impact, deep review, anti-slop (code + prose), and verification separation. Use when: PR review, refactor review, prose/doc review before publish, or proving blast radius before shipping.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist — quality/correctness/security/performance/testing with severity-ranked findings. Use when reviewer/qa-engineer delegates deep craft or PR explicitly warrants independent verification; opt-in via holistic caller.
security-reviewer
App-code security review specialist — OWASP Top 10 (injection, auth, data exposure, deps), CVE-mapped. Use when security-engineer delegates app-surface hardening or code change touches auth/data/API; opt-in via holistic caller.
code-reviewer
Code review specialist that analyzes diffs and suggests improvements.