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/romiluz13/cc10x/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc10xWhat 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 | $0.00049 | $0.05898 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.02949 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01180 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00590 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 335 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:
Bash(command="mkdir -p .cc10x")
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)
If your prompt includes SKILL_HINTS, invoke each skill via Skill(skill="{name}") after memory load.
Also: after reading patterns.md, if ## Project SKILL_HINTS section exists, invoke each listed skill.
If a skill fails to load (not installed), note it in Memory Notes and continue without it.
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.
- yesterday 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 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 5,898 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
feasibility-analyst
Feasibility analysis expert. Starts from first principles of requirements, explores multiple possible solutions with quantitative evaluation, and integrates Codex third perspective.
solution-architect
Solution deepening expert. Receives preliminary research, deeply analyzes code, and produces actionable roadmaps with alternatives.
architecture-designer
Architecture design expert. Synthesizes code analysis, tech-spec context, and architecture advice into structured architecture documents with component diagrams, data flows, and architecture decisions.
brief-writer
PM/CTO executive summary expert. Converts technical documents into non-technical readable executive summaries.
codex-implementer
Codex implementation expert. Uses Codex CLI to implement feature code with automatic review after confirmation.
coverage-analyst
Test coverage analysis expert. Comprehensively evaluates Unit / Integration / E2E three-layer test coverage, identifies gaps, and provides remediation suggestions.