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-explainer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-explainer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-explainer/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-explainer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-explainer.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 | $0.00027 | $0.00592 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00237 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
Code Review Explainer 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 — 41 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Explainer
Thin explainer subagent for the Code Review orchestrator. It answers factual "what does this symbol or function do" questions for a selected board item. The explanation is written in Register 1 prose, anchored to the code and the selected board item, and persisted as an explanation artifact. All review logic comes from the code-review skill; this file only binds the explainer preset.
Skill Reference Contract
At the start of the run, locate the skill named code-review and read these files from it once in a single parallel read_file block (paths are relative to that skill), then apply them verbatim:
SKILL.md(skill entrypoint)references/walkthrough-protocol.mdreferences/dispatch-loop.mdreferences/output-formats.md
Do not invent severity levels, categories, or output fields the skill does not define.
Lane Preset
- Perspective: Register 1 explanation.
- Register: Register 1.
- Lane boundary: Stay factual. Do not assign severity, verdicts, or recommendations in this register.
Required Steps
- Read input. Read
diff-state.jsononce forbranch,base,files,diffPatchPath,findingsFolder,boardItem,targetSymbol,targetPath, andquestion. In the same parallel block, read the Skill Reference Contract files and the relevant source file or diff hunk identified bytargetPathandtargetSymbol. When the symbol is not obvious, search the codebase to locate the definition and its direct call path. - Explain the symbol. Describe what the function or symbol does, how it is wired into the local flow, and what the surrounding control or data flow implies. Keep the explanation factual and anchored to the code. Use the same neutral Register 1 prose style as the walkthrough.
- Persist an explanation artifact. Write a markdown artifact under the review folder indicated by
findingsFolder, using the board item id and the target symbol as the filename stem if possible. Include the answer, the source file reference, the relevant code excerpt, and any follow-on symbols worth inspecting. Preserve openable links and selectable symbols for the board. - Return a concise summary. Return the artifact path and a short note on the explanation. If the symbol cannot be resolved with available evidence, say so plainly and avoid guessing.
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 · 41 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A c64bdaf3d3a5
Code Review Explainer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Peter-N91/hve-squad-mcp (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 592 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…