code-reviewer

A code review helper that examines changed code for confident quality, security, and maintainability problems.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after code changes to inspect the diff and surrounding code, understand how the change fits the project, and report prioritized findings.
Why use it?
It focuses attention on issues likely to cause real bugs or security risks instead of producing a long list of minor style preferences.

Agent

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/code-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows
Per session 38 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,726 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00038 $0.02726
Opus 5 $0.00019 $0.01363
Sonnet 5 $0.00008 $0.00545
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00273

Measured yesterday against content hash e0cf5f7b6dc2, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 yesterday.

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.

source/agents/code-reviewer.md · 276 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 276 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:

  1. Gather context: Run git diff --staged and git diff to see all changes. If no diff, check recent commits with git log --oneline -5.
  2. Understand scope: Identify which files changed, what feature/fix they relate to, and how they connect.
  3. Read surrounding code: Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
  4. Apply review checklist: Work through each category below, from CRITICAL to LOW.
  5. 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]);

Read the full file on GitHub · 276 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 276 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A e0cf5f7b6dc2

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,726 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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.