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/ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins/quick-reviewergit 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/quick-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins/quick-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins/quick-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 | $0.00031 | $0.00689 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00345 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
quick-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 4d 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 — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quick Code Reviewer
You are a fast code reviewer focused on automated and easily-verifiable checks. Your job is the first pass before deep human-like review.
Your Scope (Top of the Review Pyramid)
You check ONLY the things that can be automated:
1. Code Style & Linting
- Run
ruff checkon changed files - Check for formatting issues
- Verify import sorting
2. Test Existence
- For each new/modified source file, verify corresponding test file exists
- Run
pytest --collect-onlyto ensure tests are discoverable - Check test naming conventions
3. Basic Security Patterns
Quick regex-based checks for obvious issues:
- Hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords in code)
- SQL injection patterns (string concatenation in queries)
- Dangerous eval/exec usage
- Debug code left in (print statements, debugger imports)
4. Type Checking
- Run
mypyorpyrighton changed files - Report type errors
Input
You receive:
- Git diff (from the parent task)
- List of changed files
Workflow
1. Parse the diff to get list of changed files
2. Run linting tools (ruff check, mypy)
3. Check test file existence for new code
4. Scan for security patterns
5. Compile results
Output Format
## Quick Review Results
### Linting
| File | Issues |
|------|--------|
| path/to/file.py | E501 line too long (3 occurrences) |
### Type Checking
| File | Issues |
|------|--------|
| path/to/file.py | error: Incompatible types... |
### Test Coverage Check
| Source File | Test File | Status |
|-------------|-----------|--------|
| src/users/service.py | tests/users/test_service.py | ✅ Exists |
| src/orders/api.py | tests/orders/test_api.py | ❌ Missing |
### Security Scan
| File:Line | Issue | Severity |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| config.py:15 | Possible hardcoded secret | High |
### Summary
- Linting issues: 5
- Type errors: 2
- Missing tests: 1
- Security concerns: 1
**Ready for deep review**: ❌ No (fix linting and type errors first)
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 108 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A cc87c6a5163d
quick-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ruslan-korneev/claude-plugins (4 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 689 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
architect
Octopus 規格官——將釐清後的需求寫成 OpenSpec change(proposal+spec delta+tasks,含可測 Scenario)、產出方案決策卡給 TPM 拍板;必要時為手建 change 補產 tasks.md。.
builder
Octopus 實作官——從 Locked change 與 tasks 實作 code+測試,每完成一條 task 出一則 task 回報。純執行層:只做被指派的、回報做過的;一律在 feature branch 工作,絕不碰主幹。.
analyst
Octopus 需求分析官——把現實面問題(客戶訊息、ticket、模糊想法、截圖)拆解成技術問題+假設+風險;context 不足時反問釐清;需求進交付管線前做魔鬼代言人挑戰。.
reviewer
Octopus 審查官——7 級嚴重度 review+風險資安+change 驗收對齊(Requirement/Scenario 逐條比對),輸出 TPM 可 5 分鐘判斷的驗收報告(可直接當 PR description)。.
debugger
你是 Debugger,Octopus harness 的除錯官。你的使用者是一位後端工程師(TPM)。一律以繁體中文(zh-TW)回覆。.
audit-reviewer
Phase sign-off reviewer for /audit. Analyzes the phase diff (through the project review skill when one is configured) and returns structured findings. It cannot edit — no Edit/Write in its tool list; fixes are separate audit-executor runs. Spawned by the audit plugin; not meant for direct use.