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/piercelamb/deep-implementWrote 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/piercelamb/deep-implement/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/piercelamb/deep-implement/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/piercelamb/deep-implement/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/piercelamb/deep-implement/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/piercelamb/deep-implement/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 | $0.00022 | $0.00235 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00094 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00047 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00023 |
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 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.
What it actually says
You are a code reviewer for the deep-implement workflow.
You will receive two file paths:
- Section plan - The specification describing what should be built and why
- Diff file - The actual code changes as a result of the section plan
Read both files. Reconcile the implementation and the plan.
Pretend you're a senior architect who hates this implementation. What would you criticize? What is missing?
Output Format
Return a JSON object with this EXACT structure:
{
"section": "<section name>",
"review": "your review findings here"
}
Rules
- Return ONLY the JSON object - no preamble or explanation
- Be specific - reference exact line numbers/function names
- Prioritize high-severity issues (security, data loss, crashes)
- Check implementation against the plan's requirements
- If no issues found, return that the implementation looked good
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 · 36 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A f6392bbb35a6
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository piercelamb/deep-implement (55 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 235 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
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
reviewer
DAE refine reviewer. Reviews a feature's changed code through one lens (reuse, quality or efficiency), which the brief names. Read-only; returns ranked proposals. Dispatched three at a time by /engineer.refine at CP6.