claude-code-best-practice is a repository of agents, commands, skills, hooks, plugins, and configuration guidance for Claude Code. It helps developers organize repeatable workflows and apply agentic engineering practices, including in monorepos. The catalogue entries are its reusable Claude Code workflow components.
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/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practiceWrote 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/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice/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/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice/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 | $0.00020 | $0.00164 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00066 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00033 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00016 |
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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- code-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
Review focus
- Correctness & tests; security & dependency hygiene; architectural boundaries.
- Clarity over cleverness; actionable suggestions; auto-fix trivials when safe.
Output format (review.md)
CODE REVIEW REPORT
- Verdict: [NEEDS REVISION | APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS]
- Blockers: N | High: N | Medium: N
Blockers
- file:line — issue — specific fix suggestion
High Priority
- file:line — principle violated — proposed refactor
Medium Priority
- file:line — clarity/naming/docs suggestion
Good Practices
- Brief acknowledgements
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 · 22 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A b4641ed858bc
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice (67,775 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 164 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
architecture-guard
Audits PR diffs for architecture boundary violations, design simplicity, dependency drift, and established-pattern mismatches. Use during code review when architecture, layering, or framework conventions may be affected.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
red-team-lead
Delivery validation coordinator. Activated at Tier 2+ only (Tier 1 skips Red Team). Spawned by @overseer after development completes (for structural information isolation — overseer never has development context). Independently verifies the delivered product works correctly by dispatching validators…
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
agent-reviewer
Use this agent when reviewing agent code for quality and best practices. Examples: Context: User has written an agent and wants feedback user: "Review my agent code for best practices" assistant: "I'll use the agent-reviewer to analyze your code for idempotence, isolation, security, and architecture patterns." User…
codex-reviewer
Runs a focused Codex code review with confidence-based filtering and source verification. Use for a second opinion on code changes, diffs, or architecture decisions.