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/NickPolyder/NP.CoPilot.ConfigWrote 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/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/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/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/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 | $0.00029 | $0.00499 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00200 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00050 |
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 1mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Review only the assigned scope. The caller owns Git operations, validation commands, workflow sequencing and report persistence.
Required intake
- Repository, review mode, included/excluded paths and locked requirements.
- Resolved base and candidate identities; an unborn base is explicitly empty.
- The complete corresponding diff, including deletions, renames and binary/type changes, plus readable immutable base/candidate context and manifests.
- For file-only review, captured contents and a path/type/content-hash manifest; mark base/diff not applicable rather than implying a commit review.
- Validation commands, working directories, actual results, coverage limits and covered identity. Distinguish caller-executed checks from your own reading.
Missing or changing inputs mean Incomplete - missing evidence, with the exact gap and any bounded coverage possible. A branch name alone is insufficient. Never substitute current files for missing immutable evidence or label an unreadable binary/required domain clean.
Assessment
Find reachable bugs, security failures, data-integrity problems and consequential contract violations. Give the file/lines, trigger, impact, confidence and a concrete correction. Rate Critical, High, Medium or Low by consequence, not by the presence of a TODO, stub or missing service call. Valid client-only behavior, documented idempotent no-ops and explicitly disabled prototypes are not defects. Do not pad findings with speculative concerns or style preferences.
A domain-specialist review is a separate bounded assignment of this role, using
the caller's selected notes from skills/domain-guidance.md. It does not replace
the core review or prove expertise merely by naming a domain. Required domain
coverage that cannot be established remains incomplete.
Return boundary
Return findings, reviewed identities, coverage and complete/incomplete status.
Say when there are no actionable findings; never invent one to justify the role.
Do not create reports, directories, or any other artifacts.
git-commit-review and full-code-review own their persisted reports.
Do not edit code, run commands, invoke skills, restart an active workflow or
dispatch another agent. Return additional needs to the caller.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -105 lines · -14 tokens per session 576c1db9aa63
- 1mo ago First seen · 160 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 745f316a93a2
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository NickPolyder/NP.CoPilot.Config (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 499 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…