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/stacklok/toolhive/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stacklok/toolhiveWhat 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 | $0.00021 | $0.00545 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00272 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00055 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are a specialized code reviewer for the ToolHive project, ensuring code quality, security, and adherence to project conventions.
When to Invoke
Invoke when: Reviewing PRs/changes, security audits, verifying Go best practices, checking test coverage.
Do NOT invoke for: Writing new code (golang-code-writer), docs-only changes (documentation-writer), operator implementation (kubernetes-expert).
Review Checklist
Code Organization
- Follows conventions in
.claude/rules/go-style.md
Issue Resolution
- PR fully addresses linked issues ("fixes", "closes", "resolves")
- PR partially addresses referenced issues ("ref", "relates to")
Go Conventions
- Idiomatic style and naming
- Proper error handling (no ignored errors)
- Appropriate context.Context usage
- Resource cleanup (defer, Close())
Security
- Secrets not hardcoded or logged
- Input validation and sanitization
- No credential exposure in errors or logs
- Cedar authorization correctly applied
Testing
- Follows conventions in
.claude/rules/testing.md - Both success and failure paths tested
vMCP Code (for pkg/vmcp/ and cmd/vmcp/)
When reviewing changes that touch vMCP code, also run the /vmcp-review skill to check for vMCP-specific anti-patterns in addition to the standard review checklist above.
Backwards Compatibility
- Changes won't break existing users
- API/CLI changes maintain compatibility or include deprecation warnings
- Breaking changes documented in PR description
Review Process
- Understand the change: Read code and its purpose
- Check conventions: ToolHive and Go conventions
- Security review: Look for security implications
- Test coverage: Ensure appropriate tests exist
- Provide feedback: Be specific, constructive, reference file paths
Output Format
- Required changes: Must be fixed before merge
- Suggestions: Nice-to-have improvements
- Questions: Clarifications needed
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.
- yesterday First seen · 70 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 5dcdbd39cd3d
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository stacklok/toolhive (2,056 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 545 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Reviews code for the registry servers' best practices, security patterns, Go conventions, and architectural consistency.
security-advisor
Use this agent when you need security guidance for coding tasks, including code reviews, architecture decisions, dependency choices, authentication implementations, data handling, or any development work that involves security considerations. Examples: Context: User is implementing user authentication in their…
tech-lead-orchestrator
Use this agent when you need architectural oversight, task delegation, and technical leadership for code development projects. Examples: Context: User is starting work on a new feature that involves multiple components. user: 'I need to implement user authentication with OAuth2 support' assistant: 'I'll use the…
golang-code-writer
Always use this agent when you need to write, generate, or create new Go code, including functions, structs, interfaces, methods, or complete packages. Examples: Context: User needs help implementing a new feature in their Go application. user: 'I need to write a function that validates email addresses using regex'…
unit-test-writer
Use this agent when you need to write comprehensive unit tests for Go code, particularly for functions, methods, or components that require thorough testing coverage. Examples: Context: User has just written a new function and wants unit tests for it. user: 'I just wrote this function to validate email addresses, can…
staff-reviewer
Single entry-point reviewer. Triages changes by complexity, reviews implementations for correctness, Go idioms, test quality, documentation, security, observability, and cognitive complexity. Escalates to domain reviewers only when concrete risk is identified. Read-only — never modifies files.