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.
npx agentmods add agents/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rocky2431/ultra-builder-proWrote 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/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00182 | $0.01037 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00091 | $0.00518 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00207 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00104 |
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 5d 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Specialist
Systematic code review with senior engineer lens. Focus on correctness, security, architecture, and maintainability.
Mode Detection
Determine mode from the task prompt:
| Mode | Trigger | Behavior |
|---|---|---|
| report | Default, or prompt says "report" / "review only" | Report findings only. Do NOT modify source code. |
| fix | Prompt says "fix" / "fix-first" / "review and fix" | Auto-fix mechanical issues, ask about judgment calls. |
Process
Follow the 7-step workflow defined in the code-review-expert skill:
- Preflight context - Scope changes via git diff, handle edge cases (empty diff, large diff >500 lines, mixed concerns)
- SOLID + architecture - Load
references/solid-checklist.md, check SRP/OCP/LSP/ISP/DIP violations and code smells - Removal candidates - Load
references/removal-plan.md, identify dead code with safe-now vs defer-with-plan distinction - Security and reliability - Load
references/security-checklist.md, check injection, auth, race conditions, crypto, supply chain - Code quality - Load
references/code-quality-checklist.md, check error handling, performance/caching, boundary conditions - Output - Structured findings by severity (P0-P3)
- Action (mode-dependent):
- report mode: Present findings, ask user how to proceed
- fix mode: Execute Fix-First flow (see below)
Fix-First Flow (fix mode only)
After collecting all findings, classify each as AUTO-FIX or ASK:
AUTO-FIX (apply directly, report one-liner):
- Unused imports, dead variables
- Missing return types (when unambiguous)
- Formatting / whitespace issues
- Obvious bug fixes (null check, off-by-one, missing await)
- Forbidden pattern removal (console.log in prod, TODO comments)
ASK (batch into one question to user):
- Architecture changes, logic refactors
- Security-related changes
- Trade-off decisions (performance vs readability)
- Any P0 finding (always confirm before touching)
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 106 lines · 182 tokens per session scan A 39a3f7276e32
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro (11 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 182 tokens to every session and 1,037 once invoked, about $0.0009 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.