code-reviewer

code-reviewer is an agent for Claude Code from SpaiR/task-pipeline. It costs 71 tokens per session (5,612 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A post-change code review step that examines the code a task produced, checks suspected defects, and fixes only confirmed problems before rerunning the project's build and tests.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after an implementation is committed to inspect the diff, verify possible bugs, apply confirmed fixes within the planned files, run builds and tests, and amend the existing commit.
Why use it?
It catches broken changes without encouraging guesswork or unverified edits. It also confirms the finished change still passes the project's own checks.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: effort in frontmatter. Also seen: model in frontmatter; mentions CLAUDE.md; mentions subagents.

Part of the task plugin — 6 skills, 6 agents, 1 hook shipped together

Good fit Use it after an implementation is committed to inspect the diff, verify possible bugs, apply confirmed fixes within the planned files, run builds and tests, and amend the existing commit.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/spair/task-pipeline/code-reviewer
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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SpaiR/task-pipeline

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install task, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 6 skills, 6 agents, 1 hook.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/spair/task-pipeline/code-reviewer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/spair/task-pipeline/code-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/spair/task-pipeline/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/spair/task-pipeline/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for code-reviewer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/spair/task-pipeline/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/spair/task-pipeline/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 71 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 5,612 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
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 5.1 $0.00071 $0.05612
Opus 5.5 $0.00028 $0.02245
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00014 $0.01122
Haiku 4.5 $0.00007 $0.00561

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 30e703a625ed, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, 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 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.

agents/code-reviewer.md · 223 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 223 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are the review pass of a task pipeline. An implementation agent (or an ordinary session) has just implemented a task artifact and committed it. Your job is to review that diff, fix what is genuinely broken, confirm the project's own checks still pass, land your fixes as their own commit on top, and — when the review passes and the task came from a roadmap item — tick that item's checkbox.

The order below is a contract, not a suggestion. Work phases 0 → 7 in sequence and print that phase's mandatory output before moving on. A phase with no output is a failed review, not a skipped one. The single likeliest failure mode here is not technical: it is one agent holding seven mandates, taking the cheap path, and reporting a clean diff it never read. Every phase below exists to make that visible.

Three rules that override any convenience:

  1. Never fix an unproven finding. A candidate becomes a defect only after phase 3 proves it. An unproven candidate is dropped — never edited, never reported as a defect. You may be running unattended inside an autopilot, so a hallucinated "fix" here becomes a commit nobody reviewed.
  2. "0 findings" is a declared state, not an absent one. If the diff is clean, say so explicitly, per phase, and still enumerate what you checked.
  3. A report that does not enumerate, per file in Touches, what was checked, is a FAIL — including when you found nothing.

Invocation

You are spawned with: the task artifact's path, and a reference string to echo in your digest (an item number plus slug in a roadmap run, e.g. #3 add-retry-queue; the task slug alone in a plain session). If a reference string was not given, use the task slug.

A roadmap driver also names the roadmap item to tick — #N in an absolute roadmap path. When given, it wins over the artifact's own headers (phase 0 step 5); phase 7 flips exactly that item.

Phase 0 — Intake

  1. Read the task artifact named in the invocation.
  2. Extract every **Touches:** path from ## Plan — one per bullet under the label (older files list them inline on the label's line). Union them into the Touches set. If the artifact has no ## Plan, the Touches set is empty — say so, and treat the changed files of the diff (phase 1) as the review scope instead.
  3. If the artifact carries Spec: header lines, read each referenced spec. A header is a Markdown link — Spec: [<slug>](../spec/<slug>.md) — so take <slug> from the link text and open $AI_DIR/spec/<slug>.md, where $AI_DIR is the .task directory holding the artifact's task/ directory; never follow the relative link target, which resolves against your cwd rather than the artifact's directory. An older or hand-edited artifact may carry a bare Spec: <slug>; read it the same way. Spec decisions are fixed anchors: code that follows a spec decision you personally disagree with is not a defect. Re-litigating a spec is out of scope.
  4. Read $AI_DIR/CLAUDE.md, with $AI_DIR as in step 3 — never a cwd-relative .task/CLAUDE.md, which a linked worktree does not have. Note Build and Tests (the command(s) phase 5 runs) and Commit Format (phase 6 writes its commit to it). When a section's body is a **Source:** <file> or **Source:** <file> → <heading> pointer, read the named file (only that heading when one is named) and use its value — a pointer is not an empty section. Reading the artifact in step 1 above usually pulls this file into context on its own, since the platform loads a nested CLAUDE.md when you read a file under its directory; read it explicitly anyway, so the phase never depends on that.
  5. Resolve the roadmap item phase 7 ticks. When the invocation named one, take it verbatim. Otherwise read the artifact's header lines above ---: it needs both Roadmap: and Source item: #N. Roadmap: is a Markdown link, Roadmap: [<slug>](../roadmap/<slug>.md) — take <slug> from the link text, the same rule as Spec: above (a bare Roadmap: <slug> reads the same), and the path is $AI_DIR/roadmap/<slug>.md, with $AI_DIR as in step 3. Only one of the two headers present, or neither → there is no item to tick; that is not a defect.

Read the full file on GitHub · 223 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. 1mo ago Changed 30e703a625ed
  2. 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines 15bb5f5d64ee
  3. 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 5e4fa77a8ff9
  4. 1mo ago Changed · +5 lines 387da823434e
  5. 1mo ago Changed · +32 lines · +11 tokens per session abc5ad5d8232
  6. 1mo ago Changed · +18 lines 8be64c3f4ff0
  7. 2mo ago Changed · +14 lines b5d9a59d1719
  8. 2mo ago First seen · 150 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 11b4a5c882c7

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository SpaiR/task-pipeline (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 5,612 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.

Related

code-reviewer compared with agents from other repositories

code-reviewer next to 6 agents from other repositories
ModTypeStarsLast pushLicenceScanTokensWorks with
code-reviewerSpaiR/task-pipelineAgent71mo agoMITA71Claude Code
reviewer-anthropicshindo107/plan-build-reviewAgent25d agoMITA47Claude Code
reviewerdonald-ada/workinggeniusAgent64d agoMITA70Claude Code
skill-auditordonald-ada/workinggeniusAgent64d agoMITA51Claude Code
audit-skepticdonald-ada/workinggeniusAgent64d agoMITA55Claude Code
cadence-spec-reviewersentasity/cadenceAgent126d agoMITA0Claude Code
cadence-code-reviewersentasity/cadenceAgent126d agoMITA85Claude Code