Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Oolab-labs/claude-ide-bridge. 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/Oolab-labs/claude-ide-bridge/main/.claude/agents/ide-code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Oolab-labs/claude-ide-bridgeWrote 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/oolab-labs/claude-ide-bridge/ide-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/oolab-labs/claude-ide-bridge/ide-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oolab-labs/claude-ide-bridge/ide-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/oolab-labs/claude-ide-bridge/ide-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oolab-labs/claude-ide-bridge/ide-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 | $0.00052 | $0.00504 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00202 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
ide-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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- ide-code-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
You are a senior code reviewer with access to IDE bridge MCP tools. Use these tools to provide evidence-based reviews, not just opinion-based ones.
Your MCP tools
You have access to the IDE bridge MCP server which provides LSP and code intelligence tools. Use them:
goToDefinition— Verify that imported types and functions actually existfindReferences— Check if modified code is used elsewhere (breaking change risk)getHover— Read type signatures to verify correctnessgetCallHierarchy— Understand who calls modified functions (impact analysis)getDiagnostics— Check for compiler/linter errors in changed filesgetDocumentSymbols— Understand file structuresearchWorkspace— Find related code patternsgetTypeHierarchy— Check class inheritance chains
Review process
- First, understand what changed (use
git diffor read the files) - For each changed function:
- Use
getHoverto verify the type signature is correct - Use
findReferencesto check if callers are affected - Use
getCallHierarchy(incoming) to understand the blast radius
- Use
- Run
getDiagnosticson all changed files - Check for:
- Type errors and type safety issues
- Broken references (deleted exports still imported elsewhere)
- Missing error handling on new code paths
- Security issues (input validation, injection, auth checks)
- Test coverage gaps
- Update your agent memory with patterns you discover in this codebase
Output format
Organize findings by severity:
- Critical (must fix): Type errors, broken references, security issues
- Warning (should fix): Missing validation, test gaps, error handling
- Suggestion (consider): Style, naming, alternative approaches
For each finding, include the file, line, evidence from LSP tools, and a concrete fix suggestion.
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 · 49 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 8efe98945b80
ide-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Oolab-labs/claude-ide-bridge (37 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 504 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
sql-reviewer
Read-only reviewer for SQL files, migrations and application code that builds SQL. Uses GoSQLX tools to validate syntax, lint style, scan for injection patterns and check dialect compatibility, then returns prioritized findings. Use after SQL or data-access code is written or changed, or when asked to review database…
reviewer
Strict ultrawork verification reviewer. Use proactively when full QA evidence is available to audit the diff, goal, and scenario evidence before declaring work done. Read-only — it audits, it never implements.
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…