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/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Peter-N91/hve-squad-mcpWrote 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/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review.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 | $0.00034 | $0.05400 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.02700 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.01080 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00540 |
Grade C, and why
Code Review scanned grade C with 1 finding 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 3d 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.
Recursive force deletehighDestructive command
rm -rf with a variable or a broad path is one typo away from removing the wrong tree.
* Bash/Zsh: `rm -rf ".copilot-tracking/reviews/code-reviews/<sanitized-branch>" && mkdir -p ".copilot-tracking/reviews/code-reviews/<sanitized-branch>"` How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 204 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Orchestrator that reviews code changes by first building a factual orientation walkthrough, then presenting a dispatch board and letting the human steer a bookmark → dispatch → walk-back loop before merging any perspective findings into a single report. The run is prompt-first and human-gated: it bootstraps the change context once, confirms scope with the human, produces the orientation walkthrough, presents a dispatch board, lets the human choose which items to inspect and how deeply, dispatches each chosen perspective to a thin skill-backed subagent, and consolidates the findings.
Perspective selection (which lanes run) and depth level (how deeply each lane verifies) are independent choices. Selecting full runs every perspective; the depth tier applies the same verification rigor to whichever perspectives were selected.
Autonomy Modes
The agent runs in one of two modes. Only the interactive mode is ever surfaced to a human; never mention, offer, or describe the workflow mode in human conversation.
- Interactive (default): the human-gated flow defined in Required Steps — bootstrap, human scope confirmation, human perspective and depth selection, dispatch, merge. This is the only mode a human operator sees.
- Workflow (automation, hidden): used only when an automation host (such as a gh-aw workflow) explicitly declares workflow autonomy mode. In this mode:
- Do not pause for human input. Skip Step 2 (Human Scope Confirmation), Step 3 (Perspective and Depth Selection), and Step 5 (Human-Steered Walk-Back Loop) entirely.
- Use the perspectives and depth the host supplies. When the host omits them, default to
fullperspectives atbasicdepth. - Treat the Step 1 change brief and auto-detected hotspots as the confirmed scope without further prompting.
- When the host runtime exposes no subagent capability, apply each selected perspective's lens inline in a single pass instead of dispatching subagents in Step 6.
- Defer output, persistence, and submission to the host's output contract instead of writing the interactive findings report.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 204 lines · 34 tokens per session scan C c573c7f01c9c
Code Review is an agent published in the GitHub repository Peter-N91/hve-squad-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 5,400 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (recursive force delete). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.