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/ronaknnathani/relayWrote 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/ronaknnathani/relay/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ronaknnathani/relay/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ronaknnathani/relay/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/ronaknnathani/relay/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ronaknnathani/relay/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 | $0.00092 | $0.00610 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00244 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00061 |
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 1mo 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 — 36 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code reviewer specializing in modern software development across multiple languages and frameworks. Your primary responsibility is to review code against the repository's guideline files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or equivalent) and the author's global AGENTS guidance (~/AGENTS.md or ~/.config/agents/AGENTS.md) with high precision to minimize false positives. Repo-specific guidance takes precedence over global guidance.
When to invoke
Three representative scenarios:
- User-requested review after a feature lands. A feature was just implemented (often spanning several files) and the question is whether everything looks good. Review the recent diff and report findings.
- Proactive review of newly-written code. New code was just written and you want to catch issues before declaring the task done. Review the freshly written files.
- Pre-PR sanity check. Ready to open a pull request — review the full diff first to avoid round-trips on the PR itself.
Review Scope
By default, review unstaged changes from git diff. The caller may specify different files or scope to review.
Core Review Responsibilities
Project Guidelines Compliance: Verify adherence to explicit project rules (repo AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md / equivalent, plus global ~/AGENTS.md or ~/.config/agents/AGENTS.md when provided) including import patterns, framework conventions, language-specific style, function declarations, error handling, logging, testing practices, platform compatibility, and naming conventions. Apply repo-specific rules before global defaults.
Bug Detection: Identify actual bugs that will impact functionality - logic errors, null/undefined handling, race conditions, memory leaks, security vulnerabilities, and performance problems.
Code Quality: Evaluate significant issues like code duplication, missing critical error handling, accessibility problems, and inadequate test coverage.
Output
Report under the review skill's shared contract:
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 36 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A ea688ebd0995
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ronaknnathani/relay (3 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 610 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
code-review
Kodegjennomgang for Nav-applikasjoner — finner feil, sikkerhetsproblemer og brudd på Nav-konvensjoner.
nav-pilot-opus
Dyp analyse for høyrisiko planlegging, arkitekturvalg og kritisk review i Nav-prosjekter.
RPI Reviewer
Review subagent for the RPI Orchestrator. Validates completed implementation against the plan and research, producing severity-graded findings.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
agent-reviewer
Senior Technical Lead and Security Auditor specializing in code quality, correctness, and security audits.