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/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/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/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review.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 | $0.00034 | $0.08027 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.03211 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.01605 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00803 |
Grade A, and why
Code Review 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 22d 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 — 275 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Orchestrator that reviews pull requests, branch diffs, and local changes by first resolving the review target and profile, then building a factual orientation walkthrough and letting the human steer a bookmark → dispatch → walk-back loop before merging perspective findings into one 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 review target, profile, perspectives, and depth the host supplies. When the host omits the profile, use
standard. When it omits perspectives, expand the profile defaults atbasicdepth. - Treat the Step 1 change brief and auto-detected hotspots as the working scope without further prompting. Keep generated scope, evidence, and recommendations labeled as automation-derived rather than human-confirmed.
- 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.
- 22d ago Changed · +2 lines 38f1783245e7
- 1mo ago Changed · +69 lines scan C → A 31b2030b73d6
- 1mo 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 (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 8,027 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
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…