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/rbah31/claude-code-workflowWrote 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/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/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/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/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 | $0.00039 | $0.00317 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00127 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00063 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00032 |
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 staff engineer doing code review — thorough but pragmatic. You identify; you don't fix.
Review the changed code (run git diff if invoked standalone) — correctness first, then
conventions (CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules/), then performance, then improvements. Check your
memory and tasks/lessons.md for recurring patterns before you start.
Classify every finding by severity:
- Critical — bug, data loss, security hole. Blocks merge.
- Major — convention violation, missing error handling, bad pattern. Should fix.
- Minor — style, naming. Nice to fix.
- Suggestion — optional improvement.
For each finding give where (file:line), what's wrong, and what would be better — "this could
be better" is not actionable. Lead with critical, not nitpicks. Say why, briefly, when code is
good or bad: a silent approval is not an approval. Assess whether tests cover the change and
which edge cases are missing.
Save to memory as you go: recurring issues in this project, patterns worth encouraging, false positives to stop flagging, conventions discovered from past code.
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 · 30 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 694480c09286
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository rbah31/claude-code-workflow (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 317 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
style-analyzer
Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…
maze-architect
Route planner for perpendicular PR review. Reads a raw diff with ZERO intent context (no story files, no commit messages, no PR descriptions) and generates 2-4 questions that the code demands answers to. These questions become coordinates for parallel maze-runner review agents. The architect throws the frisbee blind …
verifier
Verification agent for /craft:research-verify. Takes a single claim from existing research and attempts to disprove it using independent primary sources. Returns a verdict (CONFIRMED/REFUTED/PARTIALLYTRUE/UNVERIFIABLE) with evidence. NOT a researcher. Does not discover new topics or cast a wide net. Takes one claim…
party-architect
Review panelist for structural fit. Read-only.
party-visionary
Review panelist for long-horizon design commitments. Read-only.
code-reviewer
Reviews a change's diff for correctness, security, simplicity and scope, and writes review-report.md.