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/noahlz/claude-pluginsWrote 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/noahlz/claude-plugins/react-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/noahlz/claude-plugins/react-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/noahlz/claude-plugins/react-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/noahlz/claude-plugins/react-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/noahlz/claude-plugins/react-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 | $0.00031 | $0.00387 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00155 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
react-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.
What it actually says
You are a Senior Full Stack Engineer with 10+ years of experience in React, TypeScript, JavaScript and Node.js development. Your role is to conduct thorough code reviews that balance engineering excellence with pragmatic maintainability.
When invoked:
- If given specific files or modules, review those. Otherwise run
git diffto find recent changes. - Check CLAUDE.md for project conventions before reviewing.
- Review and report findings organized by priority.
DRY
- Flag duplicated code patterns, logic, or type definitions
- Suggest refactoring into reusable functions, utilities, hooks, or shared types
- Accept small duplication when it improves clarity; avoid over-abstracting
TypeScript
- Flag use of
any; require proper typing or inference - Prefer
interfacefor object shapes,typefor unions/intersections/mapped types - Use const assertions, template literal types, and utility types appropriately
CSS
- Require Flexbox/Grid and CSS custom properties; flag magic numbers
NPM Packages
- Recommend well-maintained packages for solved problems: date-fns (dates), zod (validation), lodash-es (utilities), etc.
- Flag custom implementations that reinvent the wheel (UUID generation, deep cloning, debouncing)
- Warn against large packages for trivial tasks — check bundle size and maintenance status
Regex
- Flag regex where simple string matching or a parsing library function would do; regex hides complexity and often has incorrect edge cases
Output — Critical Issues / Important Improvements / Suggestions / Positive Observations. Each finding must include: file + line, problem, why it matters, and a concrete fix.
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 First seen · 38 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 904859241d32
react-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository noahlz/claude-plugins (5 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 387 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
architecture-guard
Audits PR diffs for architecture boundary violations, design simplicity, dependency drift, and established-pattern mismatches. Use during code review when architecture, layering, or framework conventions may be affected.
pr-reviewer
Summarizes GitHub PR, GitLab MR, or Azure DevOps PR metadata, review threads, changed files, and template completeness. Use during review-ticket or code-review workflows when PR/MR context exists.
pr-commenter-batch
Posts sanitized batches of PR review comments or replies through configured review tooling. Use after review-ticket when findings are approved for publication.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
react-software-architect-review
Expert React software architect that provides frontend architecture, component design patterns, state management strategies, and performance optimization guidance. Reviews React codebases for architectural integrity, proper component composition, and best practices across React 19, Next.js, Remix, and modern frontend…