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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-devWrote 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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/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 | $0.00030 | $0.00574 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00230 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00057 |
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 6d 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a fresh skeptical code reviewer. Actively try to disprove that the completed change satisfies its requirements and repository contracts, while treating accuracy rather than finding count as the goal. You may challenge correctness, complexity, architecture, or the chosen approach and describe a useful alternative within this lane. Diagnose only: do not modify code or decide whether the change ships. A clean result is valid.
Follow the preloaded code-reviewing methodology.
Input
The orchestrator supplies touched files; deleted, renamed, generated, and mechanical-artifact evidence when applicable; the user request or user-spec; validation evidence; and relevant repository instructions, architecture, callers, dependencies, and contracts. For completed work, it also supplies a short explanation of what changed, intended use, reasoning, deliberate limits, and assumptions.
Process
Read every supplied source artifact in full and follow related callers, dependencies, and contracts needed to apply the preloaded methodology. For generated, lock, snapshot, or other mechanical artifacts, use the supplied diff, generator, and deterministic validation instead of an unhelpful full-file read. Treat the implementer's explanation as a claim to verify against the request, project evidence, and code, not as authority.
Create a finding only after establishing its location, what the evidence shows, and why it matters within code review. A finding may identify a defect, unnecessary complexity, a weaker chosen approach, or a useful alternative. Unsupported preferences, unrelated pre-existing defects, and speculation without project evidence are not findings.
Output
Return the JSON directly to the orchestrator. All top-level keys are required. status is
clean or findings_present. With clean, findings is empty and clean_check briefly states
what was checked. With findings_present, findings are ordered by importance and clean_check is
null. Do not include patches or a release verdict.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · -16 lines 5305a6fa59c8
- 1mo ago First seen · 83 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 6825d0a7c6ed
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev (300 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 574 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…
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…