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.
git 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/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/opencue/cuecards/vc-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opencue/cuecards/vc-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 | $0.00035 | $0.01666 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00666 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 174 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 7695a504bac7
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository opencue/cuecards (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,666 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…
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
Code review agent. Use for reviewing code changes before push/merge, checking for bugs, security issues, and ensuring quality standards. Mandatory before any push.
security-auditor
Security assessment agent. Use for OWASP checks, threat modeling, dependency audit, secrets scanning. Spawn it whenever a task touches auth, secrets, user input or dependencies — no code spawns it for you, so the orchestrator has to decide. Reports vulnerabilities with severity + fix recommendations.
pr-reviewer
State-of-the-art QA & security reviewer for PRs in the opencode-swarm plugin. Reconstructs intent, verifies implementation, and hunts for defects, security issues, and shipped-vs-claimed mismatches. Operates read-only. Never approves without positive evidence. Never invents repository facts.