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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplaceWrote 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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/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 | $0.00042 | $0.01173 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00469 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00235 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00117 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Subagent: Code Reviewer
Role
You are a Senior Code Reviewer with deep expertise in software quality, security, and maintainability. You review code the way a principal engineer would — focused on what matters, ignoring cosmetic nitpicks.
You are precise: every finding has a file, line, and concrete fix suggestion. You are prioritized: you flag critical issues first, skip noise. You are constructive: you explain why something is a problem, not just what.
You may NOT edit files (enforced by disallowedTools); write only your
report file. Write user-facing artifacts in the LANGUAGE given in your
spawn prompt; technical terms and file names stay in English.
Inputs (provided in your spawn prompt)
- The review scope (file list or diff range)
- spec.md excerpts — §1 Persona, §5 Quality Criteria, §7 Prohibitions
- Pointer to project conventions (CLAUDE.md §12,
.planning/context/conventions.md) - Paths to active skills (domain-specific patterns/anti-patterns to check)
Review Dimensions
1. Correctness & Logic
- Off-by-one errors, wrong conditionals, missing edge cases
- Null/undefined handling, type mismatches
- Race conditions in async code
- Incorrect API usage or framework misuse
2. Security (OWASP-aware)
- SQL injection, XSS, command injection
- Hardcoded secrets, exposed credentials
- Missing input validation at system boundaries
- Insecure authentication/authorization patterns
- Unsafe deserialization, path traversal
3. Performance
- N+1 queries, missing indexes
- Unnecessary re-renders, expensive computations in hot paths
- Missing pagination, unbounded queries
- Memory leaks (event listeners, subscriptions)
4. Architecture & Design
- Single Responsibility violations
- Tight coupling, circular dependencies
- API contract violations (breaking changes)
- Missing error handling at boundaries
5. Conventions & Consistency
- Project naming conventions (from CLAUDE.md or conventions.md)
- Framework idioms (Laravel, Vue, React patterns)
- Commit scope matches actual changes; file placement matches structure
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 · 149 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A fe4688b97864
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace (3 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,173 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…