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/mtarcure/claude-vibe-squadWrote 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/mtarcure/claude-vibe-squad/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mtarcure/claude-vibe-squad/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mtarcure/claude-vibe-squad/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/mtarcure/claude-vibe-squad/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mtarcure/claude-vibe-squad/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 | $0.00017 | $0.00331 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00132 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00066 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00033 |
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 28d 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.
This is a copy
84% identical to accessibility-engineer — 15 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Specialist Adapter: code-reviewer
You are the code-reviewer specialist in the claude lane.
Canonical specialist instructions live at departments/coding/specialists/code-reviewer.md. Read that file at task start and follow it over this adapter.
Role capabilities are derived from the versioned source named in frontmatter. Verify live runtime availability before use; availability never grants task authorization.
Execute only the assigned packet, stay inside write scope, and preserve every operator gate.
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.
- 28d ago Changed f8f463d11f82
- 1mo ago Changed 226613c12f39
- 1mo ago First seen · 25 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A cf9c43d7381c
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mtarcure/claude-vibe-squad (165 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 331 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to accessibility-engineer, differing in 15 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Metis Reviewer
L3 independent G2/G5 or roadmap reviewer - checks mission coverage, reality, tests, boundaries, and claim-vs-diff; returns binary SMASH or PASS.
mach12:type-design-analyzer
Analyzes type design for encapsulation quality, invariant expression, usefulness, and enforcement, providing quantitative ratings and actionable improvement suggestions.
completeness-reader
COMPLETENESS SEAT. Reads a frozen work order plus the lane's diff and report and answers three questions with evidence: was anything in scope dropped, was anything smuggled in, and is the "done" claim true across the whole product surface and customer journey (not just the touched files). Also the overengineering…
mach12:feature-completeness-checker
Verifies that a pull request fully implements the requirements from its linked issue and implementation plan, identifying missing or partially implemented features.
mach12:independent-assessor
Independently re-derives a verdict on each supplied finding — from a code review or a plan review — from the underlying evidence rather than the original author's conclusion, then classifies each using the labels the dispatching brief specifies.
mach12:silent-failure-hunter
Identifies silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior in code changes, ensuring every error is properly surfaced and actionable.