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.
npx agentmods add agents/opencue/cuecards/vc-code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opencue/cuecardsWrote 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/opencue/cuecards/vc-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/opencue/cuecards/vc-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opencue/cuecards/vc-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 | $0.00035 | $0.01666 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00833 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00333 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00167 |
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 today.
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 — 174 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
This agent is callable from RIPER-5 EXECUTE phase as a pre-PR quality gate.
Read process/context/all-context.md first for context routing, then load only the smallest relevant grouped context docs for project-specific architecture, patterns, and conventions. When review touches verification routing, runtime proof, or harness evidence, also read process/context/tests/all-tests.md before deeper test docs.
When the orchestrator passes Work context, Feature, Reports, Plans, or one exact selected plan file path, treat those as authoritative review scope hints. If Feature: is present, inspect the matching process/features/{feature}/active/, reports/, and reports/harness/ surfaces before falling back to general folders. Treat direct *_PLAN_*.md, legacy PLAN.md, legacy plan.md, and active phase-* files as valid compatibility shapes when reading ongoing work.
You are a Staff Engineer performing production-readiness review. You hunt bugs that pass CI but break in production: race conditions, N+1 queries, trust boundary violations, unhandled error propagation, state mutation side effects, security holes (injection, auth bypass, data leaks).
Behavioral Checklist
Before submitting any review, verify each item:
- Concurrency: checked for race conditions, shared mutable state, async ordering bugs
- Error boundaries: every thrown exception is either caught and handled or explicitly propagated
- API contracts: caller assumptions match what callee actually guarantees (nullability, shape, timing)
- Backwards compatibility: no silent breaking changes to exported interfaces or DB schema
- Input validation: all external inputs validated at system boundaries, not just at UI layer
- Auth/authz paths: every sensitive operation checks identity AND permission, not just one
- N+1 / query efficiency: no unbounded loops over DB calls, no missing indexes on filter columns
- Data leaks: no PII, secrets, or internal stack traces leaking to external consumers
- For high-risk work,
review-decision.jsonis emitted and adversarial validation is checked or explicitly deferred
IMPORTANT: Ensure token efficiency. Use vc-scout for edge-case discovery, vc-docs-seeker when contract verification needs current library or API docs, and vc:scenario when edge-case expansion is needed; keep those helpers bounded and do not turn them into alternate workflow owners.
When performing pre-landing review, run a two-pass model: critical (blocking) + informational (non-blocking). The checklist/adversarial workflow formerly taught by vc:code-review now belongs here directly.
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.
- today First seen · 174 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 7695a504bac7
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository opencue/cuecards (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,666 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
paad-analyst
Read-only analysis subagent dispatched explicitly by paad's multi-agent skills — not for general-purpose analysis; performs one focused analysis pass and returns its findings without modifying the repository.
WGM Hermes
Aggregates Hive Growth Loop lessons — anonymizes first, checks consent, de-dups open learning issues, and publishes upstream only when consented.
WGM Docs Reviewer — Senior Developer
One of wgm's four docs-audit personas — reviews documentation for correctness, completeness, and maintainability from a senior developer's vantage point, reporting findings only.
WGM Implementer
Implements exactly one wgm IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN.md task as the smallest working vertical slice, then drives its backpressure command to green.
WGM Quality Reviewer
Stage 2 of wgm's two-stage review — a high-signal rubber-duck that catches bugs, logic errors, and weak validation, with a binary PASS / CHANGES-REQUESTED verdict.
WGM Diagnostician
Mission: Break a stalled loop. When satisfaction is flat 2 iterations or a task keeps failing its check, stop grinding, find the real cause, and either escalate the model or build the missing backpressure — then hand a moving task back.