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/sjarmak/coding-agent-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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sjarmak/coding-agent-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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sjarmak/coding-agent-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 | $0.03060 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.01224 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00612 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00306 |
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 14d 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 — 282 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
- 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)
// BAD: SQL injection via string concatenation
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
// GOOD: Parameterized query
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1`;
const result = await db.query(query, [userId]);
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.
- 14d ago Changed · +6 lines 14f92a3a63d1
- 1mo ago First seen · 276 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A e0cf5f7b6dc2
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows (6 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 3,060 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
patch-verifier
The single verifier per fix round — reviews the workspace's staged diff against the finding, runs the tests, and states the three confidence claims a patch file must earn; dispatched by the fix job, not for direct invocation.
strict-reviewer
Strict code reviewer. Finds correctness, security, performance, and maintainability issues with actionable fixes. Use proactively after code changes.
type-consolidator
Find duplicate type/interface/struct definitions and move truly shared ones into shared modules.
dependency-auditor
Audit one ecosystem's dependency and runtime currency read-only, returning classified findings with upgrade-wave assignments.
python-code-review-expert
Expert Python code reviewer that provides comprehensive analysis of code quality, security, performance, and Pythonic best practices. Reviews Python codebases for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, and quality issues using confidence-based filtering. Use PROACTIVELY for Python code reviews and pull request…
contract-neutral-reviewer
Contract-neutral fallback reviewer. Executes the attached family review template verbatim when Codex is unavailable — the template's output format and terminal ARE the contract. Independent research, no fed conclusions.