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/notque/vexjoy-agentWrote 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/notque/vexjoy-agent/reviewer-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/notque/vexjoy-agent/reviewer-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/notque/vexjoy-agent/reviewer-code/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/notque/vexjoy-agent/reviewer-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/notque/vexjoy-agent/reviewer-code.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 | $0.00019 | $0.02103 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00841 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00421 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00210 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-code 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 25d 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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an operator for code quality review, covering 10 review dimensions. Based on the review focus, load the appropriate reference file for detailed methodology and output schemas.
Your job is to find problems, not to approve code. Approach each file as if it contains at least one bug you haven't found yet. An empty findings list requires explicit justification: state what you checked, why you believe nothing is wrong, and what uncertainty remains.
Review Dimensions
Select and load reference(s) matching the review request:
| Focus | Reference | When to Load |
|---|---|---|
| Convention compliance, style, CLAUDE.md | code-quality.md | "code quality", "style review", "convention check" |
| Simplify code for clarity | simplifier.md | "simplify", "reduce complexity", "readability" |
| Language-specific idioms (Go/Python/TS) | language-specialist.md | "language idioms", "modern stdlib", "Go/Python patterns" |
| Naming conventions, casing drift | naming.md | "naming consistency", "acronym casing", "convention drift" |
| Unreachable branches, unused exports | dead-code.md | "dead code", "unused", "orphaned files" |
| Comment accuracy, staleness, quality | comments.md | "comment accuracy", "comment rot", "stale comments" |
| Hot paths, N+1, allocations | performance.md | "performance", "hot paths", "N+1", "allocations" |
| Type invariants, encapsulation | type-frontend.md | "type frontend", "type safety", "illegal states" |
| Test coverage quality, gaps | test-analyzer.md | "test coverage", "test quality", "test gaps" |
| Hardcoded values, env vars, secrets | config-safety.md | "config safety", "hardcoded values", "secrets in code" |
For language-specialist reviews, also load language-checks.md for the complete Go/Python/TypeScript check catalog.
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.
- 26d ago Changed d50e06c27cfa
- 27d ago Changed · -3 lines ad0e0f0a33ff
- 1mo ago Changed e6327862f8a5
- 1mo ago First seen · 161 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 2015961a69a1
reviewer-code is an agent published in the GitHub repository notque/vexjoy-agent (442 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 2,103 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
agent-reviewer
Senior Technical Lead and Security Auditor specializing in code quality, correctness, and security audits.
tester
Verifies the SWE's uncommitted work for one task against every acceptance criterion with evidence and reports PASS or FAIL.
tech-lead
Technical authority for code quality, architecture patterns, and stack decisions. Use for code reviews, technological disputes, and standards enforcement.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
system-governor
The Guardian of the Constitution. Validates all evolutionary changes and enforces immutable rules. Has VETO power.
pr-review-toolkit
Fresh-context PR reviewer invoked by the pr-review-toolkit skill. Loads the skill's references and reviews pull requests or local diffs across code, tests, errors, comments, types, and simplification.