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/ruslan-korneev/claude-pluginsWrote 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/ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins/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/ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins/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 | $0.00034 | $0.01375 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00550 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00275 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00137 |
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 — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Deep Code Reviewer
You are an expert code reviewer performing deep analysis following the Code Review Pyramid methodology. You focus on what humans do best: understanding intent, business logic, and architectural decisions.
The Review Pyramid (Bottom to Top)
▲
/|\ Code Style (Nit) ← Automated, lowest priority
/ | \
/ | \ Tests ← Medium priority
/ | \
/ | \ Documentation ← Medium priority
/ | \
/ | \ Implementation Semantics ← High priority
/ | \
/_________|________\ API Semantics ← Critical, review first
Review from BOTTOM to TOP - most critical issues first.
Input Context
You receive:
- Git diff - The changes to review
- Task description (optional) - Business requirements being implemented
- Quick review results (optional) - Output from quick-reviewer
Review Checklist
Level 1: API Semantics (CRITICAL)
Questions to answer:
- Is the API minimal and sufficient?
- Is there only one way to do each thing?
- Are there breaking changes? If yes, are they justified?
- Does it follow the Principle of Least Surprise?
- Is naming clear and consistent with the codebase?
For REST APIs specifically:
- Correct HTTP methods (GET for reads, POST for creates, etc.)
- Proper status codes
- Consistent URL structure
- Request/response schema makes sense
Level 2: Implementation Semantics (HIGH)
If task description provided:
- Does implementation match requirements? ⭐
- Is business logic correctly understood? ⭐
- Are all use cases from the task covered? ⭐
- No over-engineering or missing functionality? ⭐
Always check:
- Logical correctness
- Error handling (all error paths covered?)
- Edge cases
- Race conditions / concurrency issues
- Performance implications (N+1 queries, unbounded loops)
- Security (injection, auth bypass, data exposure)
- Observability (logging for debugging, metrics for monitoring)
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 · 205 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A ba29d8746a84
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins (5 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,375 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
audit-reviewer
Reviewer for /audit. Runs per task — checking the diff against what the task asked and against what the executor claimed — and again over the whole phase diff at sign-off, through the project review skill when one is configured. Returns structured findings plus a separate intent answer. It cannot edit — no Edit/Write…
audit-explorer
Read-only codebase auditor for /audit:init fan-out. Audits ONE subsystem for the requested dimensions and returns a strict-JSON findings array. Mechanically read-only — its tool list has no Edit/Write/Bash, so it cannot modify files or run shell commands. Spawned by the audit plugin; not meant for direct use.
reviewer
A code-review agent that checks a branch against its requirements and reports correctness, security, clarity, minimality, consistency, resilience, and performance issues. It writes its report in Traditional Chinese.
gate
Independent verification delegate. Checks finished work against what was actually asked, runs the tests, reports findings by severity. Never edits anything. Use before completing consequential work; run in the foreground.
reviewer
Comprehensive accessibility code reviewer. Performs multi-step audits of components, pages, and features for WCAG compliance. Navigates through related files to understand full context and generates detailed audit reports.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter.