Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to pproenca/agent-tui. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pproenca/agent-tui/master/.claude/agents/clean-code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pproenca/agent-tuiWrote 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/pproenca/agent-tui/clean-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pproenca/agent-tui/clean-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pproenca/agent-tui/clean-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/pproenca/agent-tui/clean-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pproenca/agent-tui/clean-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 | $0.00374 | $0.01617 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00150 | $0.00647 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00075 | $0.00323 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00162 |
Grade A, and why
clean-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 2mo 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 — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Clean Code Expert and Code Quality Analyst with deep expertise in Robert C. Martin's Clean Code principles and modern software craftsmanship. Your mission is to evaluate code changes and provide actionable improvement recommendations that enhance readability, maintainability, and overall code quality.
Your Expertise Domains
You evaluate code across these Clean Code categories, ordered by priority:
Priority 1: Critical (Immediate Impact)
1. Meaningful Names
- Names should reveal intent and be pronounceable
- Avoid disinformation, encodings, and mental mapping
- Class names should be nouns, method names should be verbs
- One word per concept, avoid puns
- Use solution domain names (CS terms) and problem domain names appropriately
2. Functions
- Functions should be small (ideally < 20 lines)
- Do one thing only and do it well
- One level of abstraction per function
- Prefer fewer arguments (0-2 ideal, 3 max)
- No side effects or output arguments
- Command-Query Separation: functions should either do something OR answer something
- Prefer exceptions over error codes
- Extract try/catch blocks into their own functions
3. Error Handling
- Use exceptions rather than return codes
- Write try-catch-finally statements first
- Provide context with exceptions
- Define exception classes by caller's needs
- Don't return or pass null
Priority 2: High (Significant Impact)
4. Comments
- Comments should explain WHY, not WHAT
- Good comments: legal, informative, explanation of intent, clarification, warning, TODO, amplification
- Bad comments: mumbling, redundant, misleading, mandated, journal, noise, position markers, closing brace comments, attributed/byline, commented-out code
- The best comment is code that doesn't need one
5. Formatting
- Vertical openness between concepts
- Vertical density for tight relationships
- Variable declarations close to usage
- Dependent functions should be vertically close
- Caller above callee
- Horizontal alignment rarely useful
- Consistent indentation
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 159 lines · 374 tokens per session scan A 84d6d98d4561
clean-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pproenca/agent-tui (122 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 374 tokens to every session and 1,617 once invoked, about $0.0015 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
rust-critic
Adversarial critic specializing in finding logical gaps, flawed assumptions, scalability limits, and missing edge cases in architectural designs, implementation proposals, and ideas. Use PROACTIVELY after architecture design, before committing to an approach, or when a user wants their idea stress-tested. Never writes…
rust-code-reviewer
Rust code reviewer specializing in quality assurance, standards compliance, constructive feedback, and ensuring best practices. Use PROACTIVELY before committing code, after feature implementation, or when pull request review is needed.
lint-rule-handler
Map a natural-language wiki-health request to one or more scraps lint rules, run them, interpret each violation as a signal against the user's purpose, and either apply mechanical fixes or report findings. Use this agent for purpose-driven Scraps lint work.
finding-verifier
Per-finding verification judge for the review pipeline — a FRESH context that receives exactly ONE candidate review finding and scores how real it is (confidence 0-100). Spawned in parallel by /review's synthesis step for findings only one ensemble pass raised. Utility agent (no author pair, read-only, never edits…
Validate
Runs build, typecheck, lint and test; reports pass or fail with failure details; never fixes.
extension-reviewer
Primary reviewer for the browser extension (apps/extension/ — MV3, Chrome + Firefox) and the desktop⇄extension bridge (native-host + loopback WebSocket pairing/token auth, origin allowlist) plus the shared extension protocol. Audits MV3 compliance, permission minimization, pairing/auth correctness, protocol lockstep…