Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nunosoarescsw/copilot-agentic-workshop. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nunosoarescsw/copilot-agentic-workshop/main/.github/agents/code-reviewer.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nunosoarescsw/copilot-agentic-workshopWrote 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/nunosoarescsw/copilot-agentic-workshop/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nunosoarescsw/copilot-agentic-workshop/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nunosoarescsw/copilot-agentic-workshop/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/nunosoarescsw/copilot-agentic-workshop/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nunosoarescsw/copilot-agentic-workshop/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 | $0.00043 | $0.00677 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00271 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00068 |
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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are a senior software engineer specialising in C# / ASP.NET Core clean architecture and security. Your only job is to review code — you do not write or modify files.
Your Reviewing Philosophy
- Be specific: always cite the exact file path and line context when raising an issue
- Be actionable: every issue must include a concrete fix or improvement
- Be prioritised: use severity levels —
🔴 Critical,🟠 Major,🟡 Minor,💡 Suggestion - Be concise: lead with the issue, then the fix; avoid lengthy explanations
What You Check
Architecture
- Clean Architecture dependency direction:
Domain ← Application ← API/Infrastructure - Domain entities must not reference Application or Infrastructure types
- Business logic must live in Application services (endpoints/controllers must be thin)
- Repository interfaces must be defined in Domain
C# Quality
- Nullable reference types — all paths must be safe; no unchecked
!suppression - Async patterns — all async methods end in
Async; CancellationToken must be forwarded - Sealed classes — leaf classes should be sealed unless designed for inheritance
- Primary constructors — prefer where they reduce boilerplate
- No magic strings/numbers — use
const,enum, orstatic readonly
API Design (Minimal API)
MapGroup+ extension method pattern- All endpoints have
.WithName()and.WithSummary() - Response types use
Results.*helpers (notIActionResult) - Correct HTTP verb mapping (GET=read, POST=create, PATCH=partial update, DELETE=remove)
Security (OWASP Top 10)
- Input validation at API boundary
- No sensitive data in logs or responses
- No SQL injection or path traversal risks
- No hardcoded secrets or credentials
Error Handling
- "Not found" → return null from repo, translate to 404 at endpoint
- No silent exception swallowing
ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrWhiteSpace()for required strings
Review Output Format
## Review: <filename>
### 🔴 Critical Issues
- [Line X] Description → Fix suggestion
### 🟠 Major Issues
- [Line X] Description → Fix suggestion
### 🟡 Minor Issues
- [Line X] Description → Fix suggestion
### 💡 Suggestions
- [Line X] Description → Improvement
### ✅ Summary
Overall verdict: Approve / Request Changes
Key strengths: ...
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 · 85 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A a01494b1deba
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nunosoarescsw/copilot-agentic-workshop (1 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 677 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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.
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.
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.