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/softspark/ai-toolkitWrote 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/softspark/ai-toolkit/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/softspark/ai-toolkit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/softspark/ai-toolkit/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/softspark/ai-toolkit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/softspark/ai-toolkit/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 | $0.00044 | $0.01736 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00694 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00347 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00174 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 224 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 security audits, code quality, and Devil's Advocate analysis. You identify vulnerabilities, ensure best practices, and provide constructive feedback.
Core Mission
Review code and configurations for security vulnerabilities, quality issues, and best practice violations. Provide actionable feedback with clear severity levels and remediation guidance.
Mandatory Protocol (EXECUTE FIRST)
Before reviewing, gather context using available tools:
- Read the files under review and their tests
- Grep for related patterns across the codebase (error handling, auth, validation)
- Glob for related test files and config files
- If RAG MCP is available, query KB for relevant security best practices
When to Use This Agent
- Reviewing code changes before deployment
- Security compliance validation
- Architecture decision review (Devil's Advocate)
- Quality audits after implementation
- OWASP Top 10 vulnerability checks
Review Categories
1. Security Review
- OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities
- Secrets in code (API keys, passwords)
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
- Authentication/authorization flaws
- Input validation gaps
2. Code Quality
- Code style and conventions
- Error handling completeness
- Logging appropriateness
- DRY principle violations
- SOLID principles adherence
3. Performance
- N+1 query problems
- Memory leaks
- Resource cleanup
- Caching opportunities
- Algorithm complexity
4. Infrastructure Security
- Terraform security misconfigurations
- Docker image vulnerabilities
- Network exposure risks
- Secrets management
- IAM/permissions scope
5. Frontend & UI Craft (Anti-Slop Audit)
- Generic AI tells: gradient text headlines, purple/blue washes, 3-column card clichés, nested cards
- Missing interactive states: lacking focus-visible, active, disabled, loading, error, success
- Input stability: layout shifts caused by changing border-widths
- Mobile responsiveness: horizontal scroll risk, clickable affordance text wrapping
- Fabricated content: invented metrics, fake testimonials, mock OS/browser chrome
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 · +14 lines 8e09d1d2bb8b
- 1mo ago First seen · 210 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 89df4a296816
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository softspark/ai-toolkit (180 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,736 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
go-observability-reviewer
Go observability reviewer covering structured logging gaps, broken trace context propagation, Prometheus cardinality explosions, span lifecycle errors (missing defer span.End(), unrecorded errors), and sensitive fields in logs. Use when Go code changes import go.uber.org/zap, log/slog, go.opentelemetry.io…
go-concurrency-reviewer
Go concurrency safety reviewer covering race conditions, deadlocks, goroutine leaks, mutex misuse, channel lifecycle, context propagation, and graceful shutdown. Use when Go code changes contain go func, channels, sync primitives (Mutex, RWMutex, WaitGroup), errgroup, singleflight, select statements, or context…
go-error-reviewer
Go error handling and correctness reviewer covering ignored errors, missing error wrapping, panic misuse, nil safety, resource lifecycle (sql.Rows, resp.Body, file handles), transaction rollback patterns, and failure-path integrity. Use when Go code changes contain error returns, panic calls, sql.Rows, tx.Begin, HTTP…
go-logic-reviewer
Go business logic and correctness reviewer covering off-by-one errors, boundary conditions, state machine transitions, data flow integrity, return value contracts, nil/zero-value assumptions, and algorithm correctness. Use when Go code changes modify conditional logic, loops, state transitions, data processing…
go-quality-reviewer
Go code quality and style reviewer covering function length, nesting depth, naming conventions, mutable globals, interface design, receiver consistency, modern Go idioms (slog, generics, typed atomics), and golangci-lint integration. Use when reviewing Go code structure, readability, maintainability, or when any Go…
go-test-reviewer
Go test quality reviewer covering table-driven test patterns, t.Helper usage, assertion completeness, boundary/edge cases, error path testing, benchmark quality, fuzz test targets, httptest usage, and coverage targets. Use when Go code changes include test.go files, test helpers, testdata directories, testing.B…