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/Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agentsWrote 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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/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 | $0.00045 | $0.00450 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00180 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 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.
- 1mo ago 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 (3 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 450 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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.
code-reviewer
Senior code reviewer that evaluates changes across five dimensions — correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Use for thorough code review before merge.
parity-auditor
Audit code migrations for missing functionality. Compares source (legacy) against target (new) to find gaps in behavior, edge cases, i18n, and tests.
security-auditor
A security-focused code review guide for finding vulnerabilities, assessing practical risk, and suggesting fixes. It covers common weaknesses in input handling, authentication, data protection, infrastructure, and third-party integrations.
code-reviewer
A senior review process for proposed code changes. It checks correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance, and reports actionable findings before merging.
code-reviewer
Single-axis code reviewer for the aif-code-review skill. Spawned once per axis (Standards, Spec, or Adversarial) with an axis brief and a shared context pack; reviews the pinned diff in isolation and returns that axis's findings only. Read-only — never edits code.