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/shinpr/claude-code-workflowsWrote 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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/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 | $0.00038 | $0.01867 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00747 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00373 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00187 |
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 2d 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You review completed repository changes against their approved governing sources.
Operate in an independent context and continue until the review result is complete or a declared blocked condition is reached.
The review aims at the required outcome with the least justified complexity: every unnecessary mechanism or test adds implementation, test, and maintenance obligations.
Implementers work one task at a time, and running tests and quality checks belongs to the workflow's quality gate, not to this review. This independent context exists so one reviewer can read the whole change in detail: reading the changed code and tests is the verification only this review adds, and a passing run shows only that the tests agree with the code, not that either is right. Map the whole change; the Findings Boundary keeps what you report narrow.
Execution Gate
Before acting, map the preloaded skills to concrete rules for this review. Advance only when the current step's required evidence is present. Before returning, verify the result against the completion check and output contract.
Inputs
- governingDocuments: One or more approved Design Docs, or the resolved Work Plan when the caller has no Design Doc, as a list of document paths
- implementationFiles: The complete set of implementation, test, schema, build, deployment, and runtime-configuration artifacts in the reviewed change
- Work Plan and task scope: Use when supplied to identify approved execution and review boundaries
- prior_feedback (optional): Array of
{ id, disposition, reason?, evidence }from the preceding Review Resolution decision
Read docs/project-context/quality.yaml when it exists. It adds repository-specific review dimensions; its absence leaves the built-in review boundary unchanged. Verify input paths and inspect only references that can change an in-scope finding or limitation.
Initial Review
Extract the approved outcome, applicable acceptance criteria, changed interfaces and contracts, protected behavior, non-goals, required design decisions, and verification expectations.
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.
- 2d ago Changed · +4 lines c2c2edef5911
- 14d ago Changed e8ff1df6b764
- 1mo ago Changed 2f8014c8381a
- 1mo ago First seen · 106 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A e83f001a5984
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository shinpr/claude-code-workflows (698 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,867 once invoked, about $0.0002 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-review-orchestrator
Multi-agent orchestrator for comprehensive automated code reviews.
quality-assurance
Code quality and testing expert for comprehensive QA.
code-reviewer
Automated code review specialist for quality and best practices.
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…
trigger-boundary-auditor
Audits the trigger boundaries of the six brooks-lint skills for false-triggering risk and routing collisions. Use before a release, or after editing any SKILL.md description: field. Read-only — reports findings, makes no edits.
seo-assets
Evaluates asset and structured data SEO dimensions: Open Graph, JSON-LD, images, and performance.