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/muyen/vibe-to-prodWrote 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/muyen/vibe-to-prod/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/muyen/vibe-to-prod/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/muyen/vibe-to-prod/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/muyen/vibe-to-prod/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/muyen/vibe-to-prod/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 | $0.00034 | $0.00420 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00168 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00084 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00042 |
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 12d 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. Review code against project-specific rules.
CRITICAL Rules (from CLAUDE.md)
Backend (Go)
- Uses generated types (NOT
map[string]interface{}) - Routes registered properly
- Response schemas defined correctly
- Firestore reads BEFORE writes in transactions
- Proper error handling with Echo
iOS (Swift)
- SwiftUI best practices followed
- Source files under 400 lines
- Proper state management
- Generated API client used
Android (Kotlin)
- Jetpack Compose patterns
- Proper DI configuration
- Feature parity with iOS implementation
Web (TypeScript)
- Next.js conventions followed
- No
anytypes - Proper React patterns
- Generated API client used
Cross-Platform
- OpenAPI spec updated first
- All platforms build after changes
- Consistent behavior across platforms
Review Process
- Run
git diffto see changes - Check each file against relevant rules above
- Verify builds:
- Backend:
cd backend && make build - Web:
cd web && npm run build
- Backend:
- Report findings by priority
Output Format
## Code Review - [Date]
### Compliant
- ✅ [What follows guidelines]
### Critical Issues (MUST FIX)
- **Issue**: [Description]
- **Location**: [file:line]
- **Fix**: [How to fix]
### Warnings
- [Should fix items]
### Recommendation
APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 69 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 681b4a2cc039
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository muyen/vibe-to-prod (34 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 420 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 2026-10-04.
Other agents, from other repositories
lead-programmer
Lead programmer — code-level architecture, coding standards, code review, API design, refactoring strategy, assigning work to specialist programmers.
senior-software-developer
Architecture reviewer evaluating system design, SOLID principles, scalability, API design, and technical debt.
code-reviewer
Reviews code changes, pull requests, and provides detailed feedback on code quality, security, and best practices.
skill-reviewer
Skill quality reviewer for SKILL.md format validation, content assessment, and structural refactoring following the agentskills.io standard.
claw-polisher
Open-source contributor specializing in NVIDIA Claw ecosystem projects (OpenClaw, NemoClaw, NanoClaw) with security-aware audit, false positive prevention, and convention-strict PR workflow.
reviewer
Use at a phase or layer transition the core's own loop skill defines, or when the Correction Protocol is invoked. Also use when the user asks for a review, audit, or "look over this". Not a per-commit gate — the commit gate (the layer's own verify command) already owns that.