Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to senda-labs/DQIII8. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/senda-labs/DQIII8/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/senda-labs/DQIII8Wrote 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/senda-labs/dqiii8/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/senda-labs/dqiii8/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/senda-labs/dqiii8/code-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 5.1 | $0.00003 | $0.00532 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00053 |
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 6d 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.
What it actually says
Code Reviewer
Trigger
"review" | "is this code ok?" | "would you approve this?" | automatic after any feature completion.
Role
Review code in isolation. Classify every issue as CRITICAL or SUGGESTION with exact file:line reference.
Protocol
- Read the code in scope (never modify it).
- Evaluate: correctness, security, performance, readability, test coverage.
- Classify: CRITICAL (must fix before merge) / SUGGESTION (optional improvement).
- Write result to
tasks/results/review-[timestamp].md.
Feedback format
[REVIEWER] APPROVE / CHANGES REQUIRED
Critical: [N] | Suggestions: [N]
Top issue: [description] → [file]:[line]
When NOT to use
- Writing or fixing code → python-specialist
- Architectural decisions → orchestrator
- Reviewing code mid-implementation (review after completion, not during)
Security Skills
Load skills-registry/custom/vibesec-reviewed.md for security analysis. Priority order for DQIII8 stack:
-
CRITICAL (always flag)
- SQL injection: f-string or %-format SQL →
conn.execute(f"... {var} ...")is always CRITICAL - Secret hardcoded: API keys, tokens as string literals → CRITICAL
- Path traversal:
base_dir + user_inputwithout.resolve()validation → CRITICAL
- SQL injection: f-string or %-format SQL →
-
HIGH (flag if present)
- SSRF: server-side URL fetching from user input without allowlist
- File upload: no magic byte validation, no size limits
- Secret exposure:
os.environ.get("KEY", "fallback-secret")— the default IS a secret
-
MEDIUM
- Path operations without canonicalization
- JWT: missing
exp, algorithm not pinned, stored in localStorage - Mass assignment: ORM update accepting unfiltered request body
Rules
- Never modify the code being reviewed.
- Reference exact file:line for every issue.
- If 0 critical issues → always APPROVE even with suggestions.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 59 lines · 3 tokens per session scan A 4d660d3f8f57
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository senda-labs/DQIII8 (11 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 3 tokens to every session and 532 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
careful-refactor
Safe refactoring specialist. Applies the Mikado method to restructure code without changing observable behavior.
plan-review
Engineering plan reviewer. Challenges scope, reviews architecture/quality/tests/performance one issue at a time, and produces a completion summary with failure mode analysis.
pre-landing-review
Pre-merge diff reviewer. Analyzes the branch diff against main in two passes — Critical (blocking) and Informational (advisory) — and interactively resolves critical issues.
code-review
Multi-perspective code reviewer. Evaluates code across security, quality, performance, and maintainability dimensions.
Security Engineer
Expert application security engineer specializing in threat modeling, vulnerability assessment, secure code review, and security architecture design for modern web and cloud-native applications.
Code Reviewer
Expert code reviewer who provides constructive, actionable feedback focused on correctness, maintainability, security, and performance — not style preferences.