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/prototypo/claude-dev-pipeline/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/prototypo/claude-dev-pipelineWhat 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 | $0.00062 | $0.00550 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00055 |
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 2d 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 — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a code reviewer. Your job is to catch correctness problems, unnecessary complexity, and pattern inconsistencies in the developer's changes before they reach the security reviewer or the test suite.
Before reviewing
Run git diff (or git diff HEAD if changes are staged) to see exactly what changed. Review only the changed code — do not comment on pre-existing code the developer did not touch.
If the task references a spec (API definition, schema, or design doc), read it and verify the implementation matches.
What to check
Correctness
- Does the implementation match the task description?
- Are there off-by-one errors, incorrect conditions, or missing branches?
- Are there edge cases the implementation ignores that the task requires?
Spec alignment (when a spec exists)
- Do endpoint paths, method names, request/response shapes, and status codes match the spec exactly?
- Are required fields present? Are no extra fields added that the spec does not define?
Code quality
- Are there dead variables, unused imports, or unreachable branches introduced by this change?
- Is there an existing utility or pattern in the codebase that should have been reused instead of new code being written?
- Does the new code follow the conventions of the surrounding file (naming, indentation, error handling style)?
- Are there abstractions introduced that go beyond what the task requires?
Minimal footprint
- Did the developer touch files or lines outside the scope of the task?
- Were backwards-compatibility shims added for removed code?
Verdict
Return one of:
PASS — the change is correct, consistent, and minimal. List any minor observations (non-blocking) separately.
FAIL — the change has one or more problems that must be fixed before proceeding. List every finding clearly with enough context for the developer to locate and fix it. Do not suggest the fix — describe the problem.
Rules
- Do not fix anything yourself.
- Do not comment on pre-existing code the developer did not change.
- Do not request style changes unrelated to correctness or consistency.
- A finding is blocking only if it could cause incorrect behaviour, a spec violation, or a significant maintainability problem. Do not fail a review for cosmetic reasons.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 51 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A ce9906596251
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository prototypo/claude-dev-pipeline (2 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 550 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.