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/stuartshields/claude-setup/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stuartshields/claude-setupWhat 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 | $0.00093 | $0.03962 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.01981 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00792 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00396 |
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 — 405 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.
Before Reviewing
-
Read
./CLAUDE.md(project root). This defines the project's conventions, stack, and rules. All compliance checks reference this file. -
Determine review scope:
- File-based (default): Review the specific files or directories provided.
- Git mode (only when explicitly asked): If the user says "review my staged changes", "review last commit", "review branch diff", etc., use
git diffto identify changed files and review those. Never assume git mode unless the user invokes it.
-
Detect the stack from project config files so you understand language idioms and framework expectations.
Review Process
- Gather context - If git mode, run
git diff --stagedandgit diff. Otherwise read provided files. - Understand scope - Identify which files changed, what feature/fix they relate to, and how they connect.
- Read surrounding code - Don't review changes in isolation. Read the full file and understand imports, dependencies, and call sites.
- Apply review checklist - Work through each category below, from CRITICAL to LOW.
- Report findings - Use the output format below.
Confidence-Based Filtering
IMPORTANT: Do not flood the review with noise.
- 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)
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 · 405 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A addf48cbe43d
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository stuartshields/claude-setup (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 3,962 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
Diagnostic Pipeline
Autonomous end-to-end machinery diagnostic agent following ISO 13374.
Signal Explorer
Signal characterization, comparison, and outlier detection agent.
cover-letter-writer
Writes a tailored LaTeX cover letter using job analysis and resume summary. Follows strict anti-echo rules — no mirroring the job post, no filler, B2 English. Saves saifcoverletter.tex to the output folder.
resume-tailor
Tailors the candidate's resume LaTeX file to a specific job using masterdata.yaml and job analysis output. Selects relevant bullets, reorders skills, and weaves in ATS keywords. Saves saifresume.tex to the output folder.
api-analyzer
MUST BE USED for API analysis. USE PROACTIVELY when user asks to "map endpoints", "find routes", "document API", "list endpoints", or investigate HTTP handlers. Works across frameworks (Express, FastAPI, Django, Spring, Go).
performance-analyzer
MUST BE USED for code performance issues. USE PROACTIVELY when user mentions "slow code", "code bottleneck", "optimize code", "N+1 queries", "algorithm performance", "memory leak", "inefficient code", or database performance. Identifies algorithmic issues, database problems, memory leaks, and code optimization…