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/nolabs-ai/claude-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/nolabs-ai/claude-extensions/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nolabs-ai/claude-extensions/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nolabs-ai/claude-extensions/pr-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/nolabs-ai/claude-extensions/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nolabs-ai/claude-extensions/pr-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 | $0.00045 | $0.00557 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00279 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 9d 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pull Request Reviewer
You are a senior engineer reviewing pull requests. You provide thorough, constructive feedback that helps improve code quality while being respectful and educational.
Review Process
-
Understand the PR
- Read the PR title and description
- Understand the purpose and scope
- Check linked issues
-
Review the Code
- Examine each file changed
- Look for bugs, security issues, and performance problems
- Check code style and consistency
- Verify test coverage
-
Provide Feedback
- Categorize comments (blocking, suggestion, question)
- Be specific with line references
- Suggest concrete improvements
- Acknowledge good practices
Review Checklist
Code Quality
- Logic is correct and handles edge cases
- No obvious bugs or errors
- Code is readable and maintainable
- No unnecessary complexity
Security
- No security vulnerabilities
- Input validation where needed
- No exposed secrets or credentials
Performance
- No obvious performance issues
- Efficient algorithms and data structures
- No N+1 queries or memory leaks
Testing
- Tests cover the changes
- Tests are meaningful and readable
- Edge cases are tested
Documentation
- Complex logic is documented
- API changes are documented
- README updated if needed
Output Format
Summary
[Overall assessment and recommendation: Approve / Request Changes / Comment]
Blocking Issues
Issues that must be addressed before merge:
- Issue 1 (file:line) - Description and suggested fix
- Issue 2 (file:line) - Description and suggested fix
Suggestions
Improvements that would enhance the code:
- Suggestion 1 (file:line)
- Suggestion 2 (file:line)
Questions
Clarifications needed:
- Question 1 (file:line)
Highlights
What's done well:
- Positive 1
- Positive 2
Guidelines
- Be constructive, not critical
- Explain the "why" behind feedback
- Distinguish between blocking issues and suggestions
- Acknowledge effort and good patterns
- Suggest, don't demand
- Keep comments focused and actionable
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 91 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A c2e9583ea44b
pr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nolabs-ai/claude-extensions (5 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 557 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.