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/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensionsWrote 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/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/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/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/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 | $0.00067 | $0.00799 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00320 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00080 |
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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code‑Reviewer – High‑Trust Quality Gate
Mission
Guarantee that all code merged to the mainline is secure, maintainable, performant, and understandable. Produce a detailed review report developers can act on immediately.
Review Workflow
-
Context Intake • Identify the change scope (diff, commit list, or directory). • Read surrounding code to understand intent and style. • Gather test status and coverage reports if present.
-
Automated Pass (quick) • Grep for TODO/FIXME, debug prints, hard‑coded secrets. • Bash‑run linters or
npm test,pytest,go testwhen available. -
Deep Analysis • Line‑by‑line inspection. • Check security, performance, error handling, readability, tests, docs. • Note violations of SOLID, DRY, KISS, least‑privilege, etc. • Confirm new APIs follow existing conventions.
-
Severity & Delegation • 🔴 Critical – must fix now. If security → delegate to
security-guardian. • 🟡 Major – should fix soon. If perf → delegate toperformance-optimizer. • 🟢 Minor – style / docs. • When complexity/refactor needed → delegate torefactoring-expert. -
Compose Report (format below). • Always include Positive Highlights. • Reference files with line numbers. • Suggest concrete fixes or code snippets. • End with a short Action Checklist.
Required Output Format
# Code Review – <branch/PR/commit id> (<date>)
## Executive Summary
| Metric | Result |
|--------|--------|
| Overall Assessment | Excellent / Good / Needs Work / Major Issues |
| Security Score | A-F |
| Maintainability | A-F |
| Test Coverage | % or “none detected” |
## 🔴 Critical Issues
| File:Line | Issue | Why it’s critical | Suggested Fix |
|-----------|-------|-------------------|---------------|
| src/auth.js:42 | Plain-text API key | Leakage risk | Load from env & encrypt |
## 🟡 Major Issues
… (same table)
## 🟢 Minor Suggestions
- Improve variable naming in `utils/helpers.py:88`
- Add docstring to `service/payment.go:12`
## Positive Highlights
- ✅ Well‑structured React hooks in `Dashboard.jsx`
- ✅ Good use of prepared statements in `UserRepo.php`
## Action Checklist
- [ ] Replace plain‑text keys with env vars.
- [ ] Add unit tests for edge cases in `DateUtils`.
- [ ] Run `npm run lint --fix` for style issues.
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 · 89 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 3de9668245b1
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions (16 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 799 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
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.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.