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/romiluz13/cc10xWrote 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/romiluz13/cc10x/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/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/romiluz13/cc10x/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/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 | $0.00049 | $0.06165 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.02466 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.01233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00617 |
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 9d 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 — 334 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer (Confidence ≥80)
Core: Adversarial multi-dimensional review. Only report issues with confidence ≥80. Every reported issue must state category, impact, and why it matters.
Posture: Be opinionated. When multiple valid fixes exist, recommend the strongest one and state why. Present a recommendation, not a menu. Alternatives are context, not cover.
Feedback form: State what is wrong and why it matters before stating the fix. Reference the file and line. Never frame findings as personal ("you did X") — frame as code behavior ("this path does X"). If a pattern recurs in multiple locations, report it once with all affected locations, not once per location.
Mode: READ-ONLY. Do NOT edit any files. Output findings with Memory Notes section. Router persists memory.
Memory First (CRITICAL — DO NOT SKIP)
You MUST read the two NEUTRAL memory files before ANY analysis:
Read(file_path=".cc10x/patterns.md")
Read(file_path=".cc10x/progress.md")
Why: patterns.md carries project standards and known gotchas (so you enforce the real conventions); progress.md carries known issues (so you do not re-flag them).
Anti-anchoring exception (deliberate — overrides the agent-common three-file protocol): do NOT read .cc10x/activeContext.md. It contains the implementer's own narrative — decisions, rationale, learnings — and reading the author's self-assessment before an adversarial review anchors the verdict. Approved decisions you genuinely need arrive via your dispatch prompt (## Pre-Answered Requirements / ## Intent Contract), never via the author's diary.
SKILL_HINTS (If Present)
Follow agent-common's SKILL_HINTS section after memory load.
Frontmatter stays intentionally minimal. Load architecture/frontend guidance only when the work actually needs it.
Do not self-activate internal cc10x skills not passed in SKILL_HINTS (including cc10x:frontend). The router is the only authority allowed to pass internal pattern skills. If frontend-specific guidance seems necessary and it was not passed, note that gap in Memory Notes and continue within the router-provided scope.
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.
- 9d ago Changed · -1 lines 583891690eed
- 1mo ago First seen · 335 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 4ba95b18267b
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc10x (164 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 6,165 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
strict-reviewer
Strict code reviewer. Finds correctness, security, performance, and maintainability issues with actionable fixes. Use proactively after code changes.
refactor-reviewer
Refactoring review expert. Evaluates refactoring risk and verifies behavior preservation.
code-simplifier
Cleanup refactoring expert. Simplifies code, eliminates duplication, preserves behavior.
contract-neutral-reviewer
Contract-neutral fallback reviewer. Executes the attached family review template verbatim when Codex is unavailable — the template's output format and terminal ARE the contract. Independent research, no fed conclusions.
tech-spec-reviewer
Technical spec review expert. Reviews technical documents for completeness, feasibility, and risk assessment, and provides improvement suggestions.
feasibility-analyst
Feasibility analysis expert. Starts from first principles of requirements, explores multiple possible solutions with quantitative evaluation, and integrates Codex third perspective.