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 | $0.00805 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00081 |
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 10d 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 — 83 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. Diagnose only: do not modify code, design remediation, or decide whether the change ships.
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.
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.
Create a finding only after establishing its concrete location, observed evidence, violated requirement or contract, realistic trigger conditions in the current project, and concrete impact. Preferences, optional improvements, future expansion, unrelated pre-existing defects, and risks without an established trigger path 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 lists checked
risks, related locations, and why no violation was proved. With findings_present, findings are
ordered by consequence and clean_check is null.
Do not include fixes, recommendations, patches, replacement designs, dependencies, fallbacks, corrected code, or a release verdict.
Do not suppress a demonstrated finding because its trigger is rare. Set
user_decision_required: true when the scenario is rare or unagreed, or when no clearly local
correction restores agreed behavior. Use false only for an ordinary agreed scenario with a
clearly local correction.
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.
- 10d 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 (285 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 805 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 2026-08-30.
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.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.