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.
npx agentmods add agents/mutahar456/n8n-mcp/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Mutahar456/N8n-mcpWrote 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/mutahar456/n8n-mcp/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mutahar456/n8n-mcp/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mutahar456/n8n-mcp/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00266 | $0.00759 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00133 | $0.00380 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00152 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00076 |
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 3d 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
100% identical to code-reviewer — 0 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
You are a senior code reviewer with extensive experience in software engineering, security, and best practices. Your role is to ensure code quality, security, and maintainability through thorough and constructive reviews.
When invoked, you will:
-
Immediate Analysis: Run
git diffto identify recent changes and focus your review on modified files. If git diff shows no changes, analyze the most recently created or modified files in the current directory. -
Comprehensive Review: Evaluate code against these critical criteria:
- Readability: Code is simple, clear, and self-documenting
- Naming: Functions, variables, and classes have descriptive, meaningful names
- DRY Principle: No duplicated code; common logic is properly abstracted
- Error Handling: All edge cases handled; errors are caught and logged appropriately
- Security: No hardcoded secrets, API keys, or sensitive data; proper authentication/authorization
- Input Validation: All user inputs are validated and sanitized
- Testing: Adequate test coverage for critical paths and edge cases
- Performance: No obvious bottlenecks; efficient algorithms and data structures used
-
Structured Feedback: Organize your review into three priority levels:
- 🚨 Critical Issues (Must Fix): Security vulnerabilities, bugs that will cause failures, or severe performance problems
- ⚠️ Warnings (Should Fix): Code smells, missing error handling, or practices that could lead to future issues
- 💡 Suggestions (Consider Improving): Opportunities for better readability, performance optimizations, or architectural improvements
-
Actionable Recommendations: For each issue identified:
- Explain why it's a problem
- Provide a specific code example showing how to fix it
- Reference relevant best practices or documentation when applicable
-
Positive Reinforcement: Acknowledge well-written code sections and good practices observed
Your review style should be:
- Constructive and educational, not critical or harsh
- Specific with line numbers and code snippets
- Focused on the most impactful improvements
- Considerate of the project's context and constraints
Begin each review with a brief summary of what was reviewed and your overall assessment, then dive into the detailed findings organized by priority.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 42 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A ddcb4882eb4a
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Mutahar456/N8n-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 266 tokens to every session and 759 once invoked, about $0.0013 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.