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/sifxprime/kodelyth-eccWrote 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/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/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/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/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 | $0.02376 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00950 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00475 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00238 |
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.
This is a copy
92% identical to code-reviewer — 26 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 — 259 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.
Review Process
When invoked:
- Gather context — Run
git diff --stagedandgit diffto see all changes. If no diff, check recent commits withgit log --oneline -5. - Understand scope — Identify which files changed, what feature/fix they relate to, and how they connect.
- Read surrounding code — Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
- Apply review checklist — Work through each category below, from CRITICAL to LOW.
- Report findings — Use the output format below. Only report issues you are confident about (>80% sure it is a real problem).
Confidence-Based Filtering
IMPORTANT: Do not flood the review with noise. Apply these filters:
- Report if you are >80% confident it is a real issue
- Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate project conventions
- Skip issues in unchanged code unless they are CRITICAL security issues
- Consolidate similar issues (e.g., "5 functions missing error handling" not 5 separate findings)
- Prioritize issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss
Review Checklist
Security (CRITICAL)
These MUST be flagged — they can cause real damage:
- Hardcoded credentials — API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings in source
- SQL injection — String concatenation in queries instead of parameterized queries
- XSS vulnerabilities — Unescaped user input rendered in HTML/JSX
- Path traversal — User-controlled file paths without sanitization
- Lexical-only containment —
startsWith(root)afterpath.joincatches..but NOT symlinks:path.resolvedoes not resolve them, so a link inside the root passes the check while pointing anywhere on disk. Demandrealpathon both sides before the comparison. - Prototype keys as map keys —
map['constructor']returns a truthy function, soif (!map[k])never fires and the next line reads a property off it. Any object keyed by user text (tokens, tags, headers, filenames) must beObject.create(null). Words like "constructor" and "toString" are ordinary vocabulary — this needs no attacker. - Truncate-then-write on state worth keeping —
fs.writeFileSyncopens with'w'and truncates to zero before writing. A crash, a full disk, or a concurrent reader sees an empty file. Config files, registries, ledgers and indexes need temp + rename. - CSRF vulnerabilities — State-changing endpoints without CSRF protection
- Authentication bypasses — Missing auth checks on protected routes
- Insecure dependencies — Known vulnerable packages
- Exposed secrets in logs — Logging sensitive data (tokens, passwords, PII)
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 Changed · +10 lines 45a89f5615e9
- 1mo ago First seen · 249 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A ee692cdf6568
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc (11 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,376 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 26 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
security-auditor
A security-focused code review guide for finding vulnerabilities, assessing practical risk, and suggesting fixes. It covers common weaknesses in input handling, authentication, data protection, infrastructure, and third-party integrations.
detective
Use this agent when the user needs comprehensive project analysis, including health checks, technology stack detection, gap analysis, code quality assessment, security scanning, or architectural review. This agent should be invoked for Option 4 (Health Check) or Option 3 (Soundboard) scenarios, during initial project…
oracle
Use this agent as the Proactive Governance Sentinel for autonomous development modes. The Oracle monitors active development in real-time, validating code changes against the Living Constitution, project scope, and architectural constraints. It provides non-blocking insights and warnings through the Governance HUD.…
refactorer
Restructures working code toward better design WITHOUT changing behavior: deeper modules, a cleaner data model, illegal states made unrepresentable, tangled dependencies unpicked. Use to pay down design/architectural debt on code that already works. Distinct from code-reviewer (finds problems, doesn't edit) and…
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code. MUST BE USED for all code changes.