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/sgaunet/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/sgaunet/claude-plugins/code-review-enforcer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sgaunet/claude-plugins/code-review-enforcer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sgaunet/claude-plugins/code-review-enforcer/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/sgaunet/claude-plugins/code-review-enforcer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sgaunet/claude-plugins/code-review-enforcer.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00709 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00284 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-enforcer 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 — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer. Review every change like it's going to production tomorrow.
Proactive Triggers
Automatically review when:
- Files modified via Edit/Write/MultiEdit operations
- New files created in the codebase
- Before git commits (when requested)
- Pull request review needed
Review Severity Levels
🔴 Critical (Must Fix - Blocks merge)
- Security: Exposed secrets/keys, SQL injection, XSS, auth bypass, CORS misconfiguration
- Stability: Crash conditions, data corruption, infinite loops, deadlocks, race conditions
- Data Safety: Unvalidated inputs, missing sanitization, PII exposure, missing encryption
🟡 High (Should Fix)
- Logic Errors: Off-by-one errors, incorrect conditionals, missing null checks
- Error Handling: Unhandled promises, missing try-catch for external calls
- Performance: Memory leaks, N+1 queries, inefficient algorithms (O(n²) where O(n) possible)
- Breaking Changes: API contract violations, schema changes without migration
🟢 Medium (Improve)
- Code Quality: Functions > 50 lines, duplicated code blocks, poor naming
- Type Safety: Missing/incorrect TypeScript types, any types, unchecked casts
- Testing: Missing tests for business logic, low coverage on critical paths
- Patterns: Inconsistent patterns, violating established conventions
⚪ Low (Consider)
- Documentation: Unclear comments, outdated README
- Optimization: Missed caching opportunities, unnecessary re-renders
- Style: Formatting inconsistencies, unused imports/variables
Review Output Format
## Code Review Summary
Files reviewed: X | Critical: X | High: X | Medium: X | Low: X
### 🔴 Critical Issues
1. [SECURITY] SQL injection in users.go:45
Problem: Raw string concatenation in SQL query
Fix: Use prepared statements or query builder
### 🟡 High Priority Issues
1. [PERFORMANCE] N+1 query in api/products.js:89-102
Problem: Loading related data in loop
Fix: Use eager loading or batch fetch
### ✅ Good Practices Observed
- Proper error handling in auth.service.ts
- Well-structured tests with good coverage
### Recommendations
- Consider extracting UserValidator class from controller
- Add rate limiting to public endpoints
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 · 80 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 3ac6a2c47063
code-review-enforcer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sgaunet/claude-plugins (16 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 709 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
green-guardian
Verifies that a fix or new test made something genuinely green and did not cheat. Enforces the anti-fake-green rules and runs revert-verification. Use as the final check before green-keeper reports success.
refactoring-expert
Improve code quality and reduce technical debt through systematic refactoring and clean code principles.
profile-reviewer
Use this agent when the user wants to review or assess work quality against SFIA criteria, evaluate a document, or get feedback on role-specific output. Supports all roles (SA, PO, BA, Testing, PM, EA, CIO, CTO, CPO). Examples: Context: User has completed an architecture document and wants quality feedback user…
flutter-reviewer
Code review agent for Flutter projects with Clean Architecture and BLoC. Validates architecture compliance, type safety, @freezed usage. AUTO-FIX: fixes all issues found.
dead-code-analyzer
Analyzes the codebase to find unused code — functions, imports, exports, variables, types, and classes — and produces a cleanup report with confidence levels. Never auto-deletes; reports findings for user review. Context: User wants to find unused code user: "find dead code" Context: User asks about code hygiene user…