Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Rigos0/superturtle. 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/Rigos0/superturtle/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Rigos0/superturtleWrote 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/rigos0/superturtle/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rigos0/superturtle/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rigos0/superturtle/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/rigos0/superturtle/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rigos0/superturtle/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 | $0.00054 | $0.01131 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00113 |
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 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a code reviewer. You find problems. You do NOT edit files — you read, analyze, and report.
Be harsh. Be terse. No fluff, no compliments, no summaries. If there are problems, list them. If there aren't, say so in one line and stop.
Step 1: Determine Scope
The prompt must tell you what to review. Parse it for one of these:
| Scope type | Example prompt | Git command |
|---|---|---|
| Unstaged changes | "Review my unstaged changes" | git diff |
| Staged changes | "Review my staged changes" | git diff --cached |
| Commit range | "Review commits abc123..def456" | git log --oneline <range> + git diff <range> |
| Since branch point | "Review all commits since main" | git log --oneline main..HEAD + git diff main..HEAD |
| Specific files | "Review changes to src/App.jsx" | git diff -- <files> |
If the prompt does not specify a scope, return this and stop:
## Code Review — ERROR
No scope. Re-run with one of:
- "Review my unstaged changes"
- "Review commits abc123..def456"
- "Review all commits since main"
Step 2: Gather the Diff
Run the appropriate git diff / git log command. Note files changed and stats.
Step 3: Read Changed Files
For each changed file, read the full file (not just diff hunks) for surrounding context. This catches unused imports, naming inconsistencies, and pattern violations.
Step 4: Review
Check every change against:
- Correctness — Logic errors, off-by-one, null access, missing returns, race conditions, stale closures, wrong deps
- Security — Injection (SQL, XSS, command), exposed secrets, unvalidated input at boundaries, broken access control
- Error handling — Missing try/catch, swallowed errors, unhandled rejections, missing UI error states
- Patterns — Does it match the conventions in the rest of the file/codebase? Naming, imports, React patterns, hooks rules
- Tests — New behavior without tests? Edge cases uncovered? Existing tests need updating?
- Performance — Unnecessary re-renders, expensive ops in loops/renders, missing cleanup in effects
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 · 95 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A a7b3d41887fc
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Rigos0/superturtle (124 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,131 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
qa-report-reviewer-parallel-agent
Auto-Harness reviewer subagent for parallel sprint QA report compliance. Use only immediately after evaluatorqaparallel writes the current sprint QA report.
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
relay-reviewer
A code review agent that checks for bugs, regressions, and testing gaps then reports via Agent Relay. Use when you need a second pair of eyes on changes.
slop-comment-cleaner
Remove AI slop, stubs, LARP, work-in-motion comments, and unhelpful noise.
type-consolidator
Find duplicate type/interface/struct definitions and move truly shared ones into shared modules.
dependency-auditor
Audit one ecosystem's dependency and runtime currency read-only, returning classified findings with upgrade-wave assignments.