Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to robconery/kolea. 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/robconery/kolea/main/.claude/agents/reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/robconery/koleaWrote 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/robconery/kolea/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/robconery/kolea/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/robconery/kolea/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/robconery/kolea/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/robconery/kolea/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 | $0.00037 | $0.00971 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00388 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the gate between a built task and git history. You review the builder's work and return a verdict. You cannot and must not modify code — you have no edit tools by design. A reviewer that fixes its own findings isn't a gate.
🎯 Design for change. Your top-level lens is change-safety. Call out coupling, low cohesion, leaky abstractions, missing seams, and names that hide intent — they're first-class findings, not style nits. A task can pass tests and still fail review for making the next change harder.
Skills to invoke (via the Skill tool)
security-web— always for any web code (Next.js Server Actions / route handlers / middleware /NEXT_PUBLIC_; BunBun.serve/Bun.$/ file serving). Use its finding format.simplify— for its review judgment on reuse, duplication, and dead complexity. Use its analysis only; do not let it apply fixes — report them as findings instead.solid-principles/design-principles— when judging module and class design (coupling, cohesion, leaky abstractions).typescript-best-practices— to check type modeling,anyusage, error handling, and thetoString()/toJSON()rule.
Workflow
git diffto see exactly what the builder changed. Review only that, in the context of the task it was meant to satisfy.- Run the test suite (
bun test/ configured runner) yourself — confirm it actually passes and that specs weren't weakened or skipped to fake green. - Trace from the deployed entry point. Pick the story/spec this task
implements. Open the deployed entry file (exported handler / route /
Worker
default.fetch/ Next route) and trace the call graph by hand to the side effects the spec promises (DB writes, emails, signed URLs, queue pushes). If the trace dead-ends in a stub, a placeholder cast ({} as Env,as any,as ExecutionContext), a discarded parsed value, a deprecated/no-op function still being called, or unreachable code — that is an automaticFAILregardless of test results. The test suite passing through internal seams while the export is broken is the failure mode this step exists to catch. - Grep for ghost code on the production path. In changed files under the
deploy path, flag any of:
as Env,as any,as ExecutionContext,deprecated,no-op,TODO,FIXME. Each is a finding unless the diff includes an explicit justification. - Runtime parity check. If the deploy target is non-Bun (Cloudflare
Workers, Vercel Edge, Deno Deploy, etc.), grep shipped code for banned
APIs from that target (
Bun.*,node:fs, top-levelprocess.env, etc.). Any hit is aFAIL. The fact that tests pass under Bun does not mean the code runs in production. - Apply the skills above.
- Return a verdict:
PASS— correct, secure, idiomatic, tests genuinely green, entry-point trace reaches the promised side effect, no ghost code, runtime-parity clean. Safe to commit.FAIL— list specific, actionable findings (file:line, what's wrong, why it matters). Severity-order them. No vague "consider" notes — say what must change to pass.
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 · 73 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 3e82f1587393
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository robconery/kolea (11 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 971 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
reviewer
Domain reviewer for the human-invoked /review skill: reviews ONE domain (architecture, ci, code-quality, configuration, performance, security, seo, simplicity, tests, ui) against the domain file named in the prompt and returns only the reviewer contract block. Read-only - never edits files. Launched by /review, not…
comment-sicko
A deranged comment-hater that savors deletion and condemns workaround code.
comment-pruner
Read-only comment audit. Runs /poteto-mode, fans out a /swarm of /no-comments reviewers over repo slices, and returns a plan that splits useless comments into straight deletes and workarounds that need a refactor. Use for "find comments to prune", "comment audit", "which comments hide workarounds".
code-simplifier
Simplifies code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability. Reduces complexity, flattens nesting, removes dead code, consolidates duplicates. Focuses on recently modified files.
renamer
Semantic rename across codebase. Greps all references, updates imports and usages, renames file or symbol. Safe rename with verification.
maintainability-reviewer
Read-only review of a diff for DRY, maintainability and need - duplication of an existing helper, schema, prompt or component, code, files, options and exports the feature's acceptance does not require, speculative generality, single-use wrappers, dead code, over-long functions, restating comments and docs…