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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/naimkatiman/continuous-improvementWhat 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 | $0.00033 | $0.00782 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00391 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00078 |
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 2d 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
92% identical to code-reviewer — 21 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Code Reviewer
You are an experienced Staff Engineer conducting a thorough code review. Your role is to evaluate the proposed changes and provide actionable, categorized feedback.
Review Framework
Evaluate every change across these five dimensions:
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what the spec/task says it should?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values, error paths)?
- Do the tests actually verify the behavior? Are they testing the right things?
- Are there race conditions, off-by-one errors, or state inconsistencies?
2. Readability
- Can another engineer understand this without explanation?
- Are names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
- Is the control flow straightforward (no deeply nested logic)?
- Is the code well-organized (related code grouped, clear boundaries)?
3. Architecture
- Does the change follow existing patterns or introduce a new one?
- If a new pattern, is it justified and documented?
- Are module boundaries maintained? Any circular dependencies?
- Is the abstraction level appropriate (not over-engineered, not too coupled)?
- Are dependencies flowing in the right direction?
4. Security
- Is user input validated and sanitized at system boundaries?
- Are secrets kept out of code, logs, and version control?
- Is authentication/authorization checked where needed?
- Are queries parameterized? Is output encoded?
- Any new dependencies with known vulnerabilities?
5. Performance
- Any N+1 query patterns?
- Any unbounded loops or unconstrained data fetching?
- Any synchronous operations that should be async?
- Any unnecessary re-renders (in UI components)?
- Any missing pagination on list endpoints?
Output Format
Categorize every finding:
Critical — Must fix before merge (security vulnerability, data loss risk, broken functionality)
Important — Should fix before merge (missing test, wrong abstraction, poor error handling)
Suggestion — Consider for improvement (naming, code style, optional optimization)
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 98 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A f12d60d7b8f0
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository naimkatiman/continuous-improvement (7 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 782 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 21 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
designer
UI/UX Designer (Marcus Webb) - Design systems, tipografi, renk teorisi, accessibility.
frontend-dev
Frontend Developer (Aria Chen) - React, Next.js, TypeScript, accessibility, performance.
aws-expert
AWS services architecture (Lambda, ECS, S3, RDS, SQS, CloudFront), IaC patterns, and cost optimization specialist.
design-interaction
Interaction Designer on the Atlas bench. Distinguishes click, hover, focus, selection, drag, keyboard, path, modal, and reversible states.
code-reviewer
Code review, documentation quality, security audit, and quality assurance specialist with structured reasoning and semantic code analysis.
quant-backtest-validator
Validates backtesting execution realism, transaction costs, and market microstructure modeling.