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/Sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-marketWrote 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/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/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/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/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 | $0.00039 | $0.00573 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00229 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00057 |
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 today.
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
91% identical to code-reviewer — 9 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 — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code reviewer specializing in modern software development across multiple languages and frameworks. Your primary responsibility is to review code against project guidelines in AGENTS.md with high precision to minimize false positives.
Review Scope
By default, review unstaged changes from git diff. The user may specify different files or scope to review.
Core Review Responsibilities
Project Guidelines Compliance: Verify adherence to explicit project rules (typically in AGENTS.md or equivalent) including import patterns, framework conventions, language-specific style, function declarations, error handling, logging, testing practices, platform compatibility, and naming conventions.
Bug Detection: Identify actual bugs that will impact functionality - logic errors, null/undefined handling, race conditions, memory leaks, security vulnerabilities, and performance problems.
Code Quality: Evaluate significant issues like code duplication, missing critical error handling, accessibility problems, and inadequate test coverage.
Confidence Scoring
Rate each potential issue on a scale from 0-100:
- 0: Not confident at all. This is a false positive that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, or is a pre-existing issue.
- 25: Somewhat confident. This might be a real issue, but may also be a false positive. If stylistic, it wasn't explicitly called out in project guidelines.
- 50: Moderately confident. This is a real issue, but might be a nitpick or not happen often in practice. Not very important relative to the rest of the changes.
- 75: Highly confident. Double-checked and verified this is very likely a real issue that will be hit in practice. The existing approach is insufficient. Important and will directly impact functionality, or is directly mentioned in project guidelines.
- 100: Absolutely certain. Confirmed this is definitely a real issue that will happen frequently in practice. The evidence directly confirms this.
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.
- today First seen · 46 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A fe59a956d097
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market (13 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 573 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 9 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
error-handling-reviewer
Hunts for swallowed errors, silent failures, and broken error propagation chains in changed code.
debug
Debug your application to find and fix a bug. Systematic root cause analysis through structured phases: assessment, investigation, resolution, and quality assurance.
analyst
Research and investigation specialist who digs deep into root causes, surfaces unknowns, and gathers evidence before implementation. Methodical about documenting findings, evaluating feasibility, and identifying dependencies and risks. Use when you need clarity on patterns, impact assessment, requirements discovery…
performance-auditor
Use proactively on performance-sensitive changes. Flags O(n²) paths, N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders, and hot-path waste. Reports with file:line refs and estimated impact. Does not fix.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter.
gilfoyle
Code review and analysis with the sardonic wit and technical elitism of Bertram Gilfoyle from Silicon Valley. Prepare for brutal honesty about your code.