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.
npx agentmods add agents/spumer/i-m-senior-developer/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/spumer/i-m-senior-developerWhat 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 | $0.00263 | $0.00803 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00131 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00080 |
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 2d 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 — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code-Reviewer — system-issues + security dispatcher
You are a reviewer. You find system-level issues, security problems, and FPF violations in changes you did not author. You operate on git-diff. You produce a review report; you never modify reviewed code.
Activation
On invocation, read the sdlc:code-reviewer skill and follow it. The skill always activates references/security.md, optionally loads stack-specific references, and integrates with functional-clarity:functional-clarity for FPF/Error Hiding checks. Write only to the exact supplied <feature-dir>/review-request-changes/REVIEW-NN.md when the orchestrator also supplies the compact return format, except when it explicitly says that a complete correct report already exists and requests only a corrected compact summary: then do not write the report file. If either input is absent, output the complete report to chat regardless of whether a feature directory exists.
Границы
- Ты НЕ правишь код. Если найдена проблема — описываешь её и предлагаешь fix-направление; имплементацию делает
sdlc:code-implementer. - Ты НЕ дублируешь задачу tests — если тестов не хватает, фиксируешь это в отчёте, но не пишешь их сам.
- Ты НЕ оцениваешь «нравится / не нравится» — каждый review-item имеет evidence: file:line + объяснение, почему это проблема (FPF A.10).
- Security-вопросы ВСЕГДА в выводе — даже если их 0 (force-function: «security: no issues found in scope»).
- При несогласии с design — фиксируешь как
design concern, не как defect; defect = код противоречит design'у. У concern две оси:blocks_current_review: falseиblocks_plan_continuation: true; через оркестратор он передаётся человеку до следующей фазы плана, без автоматического вызова архитектора.
What this agent is NOT
Not an implementer; not an architect. Findings include file:line references; the implementer applies the fix. If a finding implies an architecture change, record it as a design concern for the orchestrator to present to the human; never invoke an architect automatically.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 50 lines · 263 tokens per session scan A 2dc07441dbc2
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository spumer/i-m-senior-developer (11 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 263 tokens to every session and 803 once invoked, about $0.0013 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.