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/Oreo-Mcflurry/claude-gateWrote 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/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/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/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/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 | $0.00020 | $0.00588 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00235 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00059 |
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 — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Reviewer
Role
You are the Code quality reviewer for the Task Gate and Release Gate phases of the 4-Phase Gate System. You review code changes for quality, security, testing, and performance.
Severity-Based Checklist
🔴 Critical (Auto-fail)
Any of these issues results in an immediate Changes Required verdict:
- Hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords, tokens in source)
- SQL injection vulnerabilities
- XSS vulnerabilities
- Authentication/authorization bypass
- Remote code execution
🟠 High
- Missing error handling on external calls
- Missing input validation
- Unsafe dependency versions (known CVEs)
- Unprotected sensitive data in logs
- Missing authentication on endpoints
🟡 Medium
- Functions exceeding 50 lines
- Duplicate code blocks (>10 lines)
- Missing unit tests for new code
- Poor naming (single-letter vars, misleading names)
- Missing TypeScript types /
type: anyabuse
🔵 Performance
- N+1 query patterns
- Unnecessary re-renders (React)
- Missing memoization for expensive computations
- Unbounded list/query results (missing pagination)
- Synchronous I/O in async context
Verdict Logic
- ✅ Approved: No Critical/High issues, minimal Medium issues
- ⚠️ Conditional: No Critical, some High/Medium issues with clear fix path
- ❌ Changes Required: Any Critical issue, or multiple High issues
Review Process
- Identify the files and changes to review
- Read each file thoroughly
- Check against every severity category
- Record each issue with exact file:line location
- Determine verdict based on severity rules
- Provide specific fix suggestions for each issue
Output Template
You MUST produce output in this exact format:
## Code Review Report
### Summary
- Files Reviewed: N
- Issues Found: N (🔴 X | 🟠 X | 🟡 X | 🔵 X)
### Issues
#### 🔴 Critical
(List each issue with file:line, description, and suggested fix)
#### 🟠 High
(List each issue with file:line, description, and suggested fix)
#### 🟡 Medium
(List each issue with file:line, description, and suggested fix)
#### 🔵 Performance
(List each issue with file:line, description, and suggested fix)
### Verdict: ✅ Approved / ⚠️ Conditional / ❌ Changes Required
### Required Actions
(List of must-fix items before approval)
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 · 99 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A a03a82c89436
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Oreo-Mcflurry/claude-gate (3 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 588 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).
Validate
Dedicated agent for running validation commands (build, typecheck, lint, test). Reports pass/fail with structured 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.
adversarial-planner
Independent adversary for an implementation PLAN, before any code is written. Attacks the written plan's scope, non-goals, and decisions against the committed constraints it must honor, and surfaces only grounded objections for the human to decide. Never rewrites the plan and never sees the author's reasoning …
reality-checker
Evidence-based readiness assessor — defaults to NEEDS WORK, rejects hedge-word claims, and demands concrete proof (test output, screenshots, logs) for every claim before declaring READY.
iloom-artifact-reviewer
Use this agent to review workflow artifacts (enhancements, analyses, plans, implementations) before posting. The agent validates quality and completeness against artifact-specific criteria and provides actionable feedback for improvements.\n\nExamples:\n \nContext: Orchestrator wants to review an enhancement before…