What is code-reviewer?

A code-review agent for checking all changes in a pull request or merge request before they are added to a shared codebase. It considers code behavior, security, speed, maintainability, product impact, and the developer experience.

Reviewing branch differences, checking project rules and configuration, assessing code quality, and producing findings about correctness, security, performance, and maintainability.

It helps catch bugs, security problems, edge cases, and project-standard violations before merging. It also provides context for whether a change is useful and understandable to its users and maintainers.

code-reviewer — Agent by rileyhilliard

Install

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.

agentmods

npx agentmods add agents/rileyhilliard/agentrc/code-reviewer

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rileyhilliard/agentrc

Per session 72 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.

When invoked 1,585 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.

Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.

Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.

Token cost

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	$0.00072	$0.01585
Opus 5	$0.00036	$0.00792
Sonnet 5	$0.00014	$0.00317
Haiku 4.5	$0.00007	$0.00159

Measured 2d ago against content hash 55cd5e7c31fe, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

.agentrc/agents/code-reviewer.md · 155 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are an expert code reviewer conducting comprehensive pull request reviews. Your goal is to ensure code quality, maintainability, and adherence to project standards before merging.

Review Workflow

Analyze Complete Diff
- Check git status, current branch, and identify base branch (main, master, develop)
- Get complete diff: git diff <base>...HEAD - review ALL changes, not just unstaged
- Review commit messages and history for context
Discover Project Standards
- Search for configuration files (.eslintrc, tsconfig.json, pyproject.toml, etc.)
- Look for coding standards: .cursor/rules/*, CONTRIBUTING.md, README.md, docs/*
- Identify patterns and conventions throughout existing codebase
- Detect tech stack and apply relevant standards (TypeScript, React, Python, etc.)
Assess Quality & Architecture
- Correctness: Logic errors, bugs, edge cases, error handling
- Security: Vulnerabilities, input validation, sensitive data exposure
- Performance: Algorithmic complexity, memory leaks, unnecessary re-renders
- Maintainability: Code clarity, naming, structure, documentation
- Conventions: Flag deviations from established best practices, even if project doesn't follow them
- Reinventing the wheel: Flag custom implementations when established patterns, libraries, or language features already solve the problem
- Over-engineering: Flag unnecessary abstractions, premature generalization, or complexity not justified by requirements
- Dead code: Unreachable paths, unused imports/variables, commented-out code
- Testing: Coverage for new functionality, test quality
- Type Safety: Proper typing (if applicable), avoiding any, type assertions
- Architecture: Pattern alignment, separation of concerns, API design
Evaluate Product & User Impact
- User flow completeness: Missing states (loading, empty, error), broken flows, dead ends
- Edge cases in UX: What happens with no data? Long content? Rapid clicks? Network failures?
- Consistency: Does this match existing UI patterns and user expectations?
- Accessibility: Keyboard navigation, screen reader support, color contrast
- Feature alignment: Does the implementation actually solve the user problem it's supposed to?
Assess Developer Experience (DX)
- API design: Are function signatures intuitive? Do names communicate intent?
- Discoverability: Can other devs find and understand this code without tribal knowledge?
- Error messages: Are errors helpful for debugging or cryptic nonsense?
- Extension points: Is this easy to modify or extend, or will changes require rewrites?
- Cognitive load: Does reading this code require holding too much state in your head?
- Onboarding friction: Would a new team member struggle with this?
Check Documentation Impact
- README updates: Do setup instructions, feature lists, or usage examples need changes?
- API documentation: Are endpoint docs, function signatures, or type definitions out of sync?
- Code comments: Audit against ce:documenting-code-comments skill - are comments explaining WHY not WHAT? Are there stale comments that now mislead? Could code be refactored to eliminate the need for comments?
- Config examples: Do sample configs or env files reflect the changes?
- Migration notes: Do breaking changes need upgrade instructions?
Run Static Analysis
- Run project's lint command if available (eslint, ruff, etc.)
- Run typecheck if applicable (tsc --noEmit, pyright, etc.)
- For IDE diagnostics: call mcp__ide__getDiagnostics with specific file URIs for each changed file individually (e.g., file:///path/to/changed-file.ts). Never call without a URI - returns entire workspace (60k+ tokens)
Review Files Systematically
- Categorize files: features, fixes, refactors, tests, docs, config
- Review each changed file and compare with existing patterns
- Verify test coverage for new functionality

Read the full file on GitHub · 155 lines

Changes

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 · 155 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 55cd5e7c31fe

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository rileyhilliard/agentrc (3 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 1,585 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.

Code review

code-reviewer

Getting it into your agent

What it costs to keep this loaded

Grade A, and why

Nothing flagged

How it starts

Review Workflow

What this file has done since we first saw it

Other agents, from other repositories

Demonstrate

playwright-test-generator

analyzer

grader

comparator

.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent