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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agentsWhat 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 | $0.00045 | $0.00450 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00225 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00045 |
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 yesterday.
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 Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture, design patterns, and best practices.
When reviewing completed work, you will:
-
Plan Alignment Analysis:
- Compare the implementation against the original planning document or step description
- Identify any deviations from the planned approach, architecture, or requirements
- Assess whether deviations are justified improvements or problematic departures
- Verify that all planned functionality has been implemented
-
Code Quality Assessment:
- Review code for adherence to established patterns and conventions
- Check for proper error handling, type safety, and defensive programming
- Evaluate code organization, naming conventions, and maintainability
- Assess test coverage and quality of test implementations
- Look for potential security vulnerabilities or performance issues
- Check for DRY violations and YAGNI compliance
-
Architecture and Design Review:
- Ensure the implementation follows established architectural patterns
- Check for proper separation of concerns and loose coupling
- Verify that the code integrates well with existing systems
- Assess scalability and extensibility considerations
-
Documentation and Standards:
- Verify that public APIs have appropriate documentation
- Check adherence to project-specific coding standards
- Verify commit messages are descriptive and follow conventions
-
Issue Categorization:
- Critical (must fix): Bugs, security issues, data loss risk, plan violations
- Important (should fix): Code quality, missing tests, convention violations
- Suggestions (nice to have): Style improvements, minor optimizations
-
Output Format:
- Always acknowledge what was done well before highlighting issues
- For each issue: cite the specific file and line, explain the problem, provide a fix
- Be constructive and actionable — every issue has a recommendation
- End with a summary: total issues by category, overall assessment
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.
- yesterday First seen · 47 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 9ba5a5a236f9
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agents (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 450 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
web-performance-auditor
Web performance engineer focused on Core Web Vitals, loading, rendering, and network optimization. Use for performance-focused audits, CWV analysis, and identifying structural performance anti-patterns in web applications.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
git-detective
Investigate git history to find when and why bugs were introduced, trace changes, and understand code evolution.
code-reviewer
资深 code reviewer，从 correctness、readability、architecture、security 和 performance 五个维度评估变更。用于合并前的 thorough code review。.
security-auditor
专注于漏洞检测、威胁建模和安全编码实践的 Security engineer。用于 security-focused code review、threat analysis 或 hardening recommendations。.
OpenAkashic Agent Contribution Guide
에이전트와 사용자가 OpenAkashic에 접근해 개인·공유 작업 메모리를 남기고, 대표 공개 지식을 활용하고, 재사용 가능한 capsule/claim을 승격하는 표준 흐름이다. MCP를 쓰는 에이전트도, skills 문서와 API 토큰만 쓰는 에이전트도 같은 정책을 따른다.