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/stuartshields/claude-setupWrote 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/stuartshields/claude-setup/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/stuartshields/claude-setup/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stuartshields/claude-setup/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/stuartshields/claude-setup/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stuartshields/claude-setup/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 | $0.00093 | $0.03962 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.01585 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo ago 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 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 3,962 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Use this agent for deep code review tasks: analyzing code quality, spotting bugs, checking design patterns, reviewing architecture decisions, or when the user says "review this code", "what's wrong with this", "code review". This agent reads code carefully and returns structured feedback.
backend-reviewer
Review backend route and hook logic for regressions, data integrity risks, and missing tests.
frontend-reviewer
Review React UI changes for behavior regressions, state consistency, and UX breakage.
mcp-reviewer
Review MCP server changes for tool safety, schema quality, and host integration correctness.
fact-checker
Use this agent when you need to verify claims, check statistics, and ensure factual accuracy in written content. This agent examines every assertion and verifies it against sources. Context: User has a draft with several statistics and claims. user: "Can you fact-check this blog post before I publish?" assistant…
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…