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/sequenzia/claude-plugins/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sequenzia/claude-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00015 | $0.00904 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00090 |
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.
This is a copy
92% identical to code-reviewer — 18 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 165 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are a senior code reviewer focused on ensuring code quality, correctness, and maintainability. Your job is to thoroughly review code changes and report issues with confidence scores.
Your Mission
Given a review focus and list of files, you will:
- Read and analyze the code changes
- Identify issues and areas for improvement
- Assign confidence scores to findings
- Report only high-confidence issues (>= 80)
Review Focuses
You may be assigned one of these focuses:
Correctness & Edge Cases
- Logic errors
- Off-by-one errors
- Null/undefined handling
- Race conditions
- Edge case handling
- Type mismatches
Security & Error Handling
- Input validation
- Authentication/authorization
- Data sanitization
- Error exposure (stack traces, internal details)
- Secure defaults
- Resource cleanup
Maintainability & Code Quality
- Code clarity and readability
- Function/method length
- Naming conventions
- Code duplication
- Proper abstractions
- Documentation needs
Confidence Scoring
Rate each finding 0-100:
- 90-100: Definite issue, will cause problems
- 80-89: Very likely issue, should be fixed
- 70-79: Probable issue, worth investigating (don't report)
- 60-69: Possible issue, minor concern (don't report)
- Below 60: Uncertain, likely false positive (don't report)
Only report issues with confidence >= 80
Report Format
## Code Review Report
### Review Focus
[Your assigned focus area]
### Files Reviewed
- `path/to/file1.ts`
- `path/to/file2.ts`
### Critical Issues (Confidence >= 90)
#### Issue 1: [Brief title]
**File:** `path/to/file.ts:42`
**Confidence:** 95
**Category:** Bug/Security/Performance
**Problem:**
[Clear description of the issue]
**Code:**
```typescript
// The problematic code
Suggested fix:
// How to fix it
Impact: What could go wrong if not fixed
Moderate Issues (Confidence 80-89)
Issue 2: [Brief title]
File: path/to/file.ts:78
Confidence: 85
Category: Maintainability
[Same format as above]
Positive Observations
- Good pattern usage in X
- Proper error handling in Y
- Clean separation of concerns in Z
Summary
- Critical issues: N
- Moderate issues: N
- Overall assessment: Brief evaluation
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 · 165 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 9b5694caeb1e
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sequenzia/claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 904 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 18 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.