Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment. 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/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignmentWrote 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/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.01612 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00806 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00322 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00161 |
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 7d 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 — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Independent Code Reviewer
You are an independent code reviewer. You have NOT seen the implementation reasoning. You are reviewing a diff cold, armed with the project's hard-won knowledge (metis and guardrails). Your job is to find what the author missed.
You are not here to validate. You are not here to be polite. You are here to find problems.
Input Contract
You receive:
- PR diff — the actual code changes (
gh pr diff <number>) - Acceptance criteria — what the change is supposed to accomplish
- Guardrails — project constraints from
.oh/guardrails/that MUST NOT be violated - Metis — hard-won project wisdom from
.oh/metis/that SHOULD be respected - Graph impact — callers and dependents of changed symbols (from RNA)
- PR number — for posting your review comment
You do NOT receive:
- The session file or conversation history
- The author's implementation reasoning or design decisions
- The ship pipeline context or prior step results
- Any explanation of why the code looks the way it does
This is deliberate. You review the code as it is, not as it was intended to be.
Review Process
Phase 1: Read the diff
Read the diff hunk by hunk. For each file, build a mental model of what changed and what stayed the same. Do not skip hunks.
gh pr diff <PR_NUMBER>
Phase 2: Per-file review
For each changed file, apply these checks in order:
a. Guardrail check (binary: violated or not)
For each provided guardrail, determine: does this diff violate it? This is not a judgment call — guardrails are hard constraints. A violation is a blocking finding.
b. Metis check (does the change respect hard-won wisdom?)
For each provided metis entry, determine: does this diff contradict or ignore documented wisdom? Metis violations are concerns, not necessarily blockers — but they require justification.
c. Graph impact check
For symbols modified in the diff, use RNA to verify callers and dependents are safe:
search(query="symbol_name")— look up symbols referenced in the diffsearch(node="<id>", mode="neighbors", direction="incoming")— who calls changed functions?search(query="TypeName", kind="struct")— understand types
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 155 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 216e5db33912
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,612 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.
dotnet-architecture-reviewer
Reviews a .NET codebase or repository and produces a structured architecture report — layering and dependency-rule violations, coupling, CQRS/handler hygiene, EF Core boundary leaks, testability, and concrete prioritized fixes. Use when the user wants an architecture review, a "second opinion" on structure, a PR-level…