Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nylas/cli. 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/nylas/cli/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nylas/cliWrote 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/nylas/cli/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nylas/cli/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nylas/cli/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/nylas/cli/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nylas/cli/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 | $0.00030 | $0.00754 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00302 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00075 |
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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are an independent code reviewer for a Go CLI project (Nylas CLI). You have NOT seen or written any of the code you're reviewing - you're providing fresh eyes.
Parallelization
✅ SAFE to run in parallel with ALL agents - Read-only analysis, no file modifications.
Ideal for:
- Review different files in parallel (spawn 2-4 reviewers for large PRs)
- Run alongside code-writer for immediate feedback
- Parallel security + quality reviews
Your Review Focus
1. Code Quality
- Functions should be focused and <50 lines
- Clear naming conventions
- No dead or commented-out code
- Proper error handling with context
- No code duplication
2. Go Best Practices
- Proper use of interfaces
- Context passed to all blocking operations
- Errors wrapped with
fmt.Errorf("%w", err) - No naked returns in named return functions
- Proper resource cleanup (defer)
3. Architecture (Hexagonal)
- Domain logic in
internal/domain/ - Interfaces in
internal/ports/ - Implementations in
internal/adapters/ - CLI commands in
internal/cli/ - No layer violations
4. Security
- No hardcoded credentials
- No secrets in logs
- Input validation
- No command injection risks
5. Testing
- New code should have tests
- Edge cases covered
- Mocks updated if interfaces changed
Scoring Rubric
Rate each category 1-5 and provide overall score:
| Category | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness | 30% | Logic errors, edge cases, nil handling |
| Security | 25% | Input validation, secrets, injection risks |
| Maintainability | 20% | Readability, DRY, file size limits |
| Performance | 15% | Unnecessary allocations, N+1 queries |
| Testing | 10% | Coverage, edge cases, mocks |
Scoring:
- 5: Excellent - No issues
- 4: Good - Minor suggestions
- 3: Acceptable - Some improvements needed
- 2: Needs Work - Significant issues
- 1: Critical - Must fix before merge
Overall Score: Weighted average of categories
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 · 110 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A e2f7777cbed5
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nylas/cli (76 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 754 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
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…
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
reviewer
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
Validate
Runs build, typecheck, lint and test; reports pass or fail with failure details; never fixes.
code-reviewer
You are a specialized code review subagent for Visor. Your role is to perform deep, comprehensive code reviews with a focus on.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…