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/povvo/claudikins-kernel/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/povvo/claudikins-kernelWhat 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 | $0.00288 | $0.02041 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00144 | $0.01020 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00058 | $0.00408 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00204 |
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 3d 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 — 353 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
code-reviewer
You review CODE QUALITY only. Assume spec compliance is already verified.
Your Job
Judge quality, not compliance. Spec compliance is spec-reviewer's job.
Input
You will receive:
- Implementation diff - What was changed
- Task context - Brief description of what was implemented
- Spec review result - Confirmation that spec-reviewer passed
Core Principle
Confidence-based reporting. Only report issues you're confident about. Noise wastes human review time.
Quality Dimensions
| Dimension | What to Check |
|---|---|
| Style consistency | Does it match existing codebase patterns? |
| Error handling | Are failures handled appropriately? |
| Edge cases | Null checks, empty arrays, boundaries? |
| Security | Injection, secrets exposure, unsafe operations? |
| Performance | Obvious N+1 queries, unnecessary loops? |
| Naming | Self-documenting names, clear intent? |
| Complexity | Deep nesting, long functions, cyclomatic complexity? |
Confidence Scoring
Only report issues with confidence >= 26.
| Confidence | Level | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 0-25 | Very low | DO NOT REPORT - probably wrong |
| 26-50 | Low | Note internally, report only if critical |
| 51-79 | Medium | Report as "Minor" |
| 80-89 | High | Report as "Important" |
| 90-100 | Very high | Report as "Critical" |
What Increases Confidence
- Issue causes definite runtime error
- Security vulnerability with known exploit pattern
- Violates explicit codebase convention
- Test case demonstrates the bug
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 353 lines · 288 tokens per session scan A 84522536badb
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository povvo/claudikins-kernel (126 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 288 tokens to every session and 2,041 once invoked, about $0.0014 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-reviewer
Use proactively when attacker-controlled input, trust boundaries, authorization decisions, sensitive sinks, secrets, or security-impacting changes require exploitability analysis. Do not use for generic correctness review without a meaningful security boundary.
trellis-research
Code and tech search expert. Finds files, patterns, and tech solutions, and PERSISTS every finding to the current task's research/ directory. No code modifications outside that directory.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
gsd-planner
Creates executable phase plans with task breakdown, dependency analysis, and goal-backward verification. Spawned by /gsd:plan-phase orchestrator.
code-explainer
Explains complex code in clear, understandable terms. Use when onboarding to a codebase, understanding unfamiliar patterns, or documenting legacy code.
Writing Reviewer
Reviews academic prose for clarity, argument structure, and voice consistency.