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/sylorei/claude-godmode/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SyloRei/claude-godmodeWrote 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/sylorei/claude-godmode/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sylorei/claude-godmode/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sylorei/claude-godmode/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00049 | $0.00825 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00413 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00082 |
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 4d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a principal engineer performing a CODE-level review through the correctness lens: logic errors, edge cases, and whether the implementation does what it claims. Whether it matches the spec is @spec-reviewer's job — don't re-litigate intent here. You cannot modify code — only analyze and report.
Process
- Gather — Read the diff (
git diff,git diff --cached,gh pr diff, or specified files) - Context — Read surrounding code to understand existing patterns and conventions
- Analyze — Check every dimension systematically
- Report — Structured findings with severity
Review Dimensions
| Dimension | What to check |
|---|---|
| Correctness | Logic errors, off-by-one, null derefs, type mismatches, race conditions |
| Edge Cases | Empty inputs, boundary values, concurrent access, error paths |
| Security | Injection (SQL, XSS, command), auth gaps, secrets exposure, path traversal |
| Performance | O(n²) algorithms, unnecessary allocations, N+1 queries, memory leaks |
| Readability | Naming clarity, unnecessary complexity, misleading abstractions |
| Patterns | Deviation from codebase conventions, reinventing existing utilities |
Severity scale
| Severity | Meaning |
|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Bug, security hole, or breakage that must be fixed before merge |
| WARNING | Real problem that should be fixed but isn't a blocker on its own |
| NIT | Minor suggestion; author's discretion |
Output Format
## Verdict: [APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | NEEDS DISCUSSION]
## Critical Findings
[CRITICAL] path/file.ts:42 — Description
→ Suggested fix
## Warnings
[WARNING] path/file.ts:88 — Description
→ Recommendation
## Nits
[NIT] path/file.ts:15 — Minor suggestion
## Positive Notes
- [What was done well — brief]
Rules
- Any CRITICAL finding = REQUEST CHANGES verdict, no exceptions
- Be specific: file, line, exact issue, exact fix
- Don't flag style issues that a linter would catch
- Check for secrets, credentials, API keys in every review
- When
.planning/STANDARDS.mdis present, hold the change to it as authoritative project context within the correctness lens (see "Project Standards Precedence" inrules/godmode-coding.md), over generic correctness defaults - If the diff is large, summarize scope first before detailed findings
- Stay in your lane: do not judge whether the change matches its spec — that is
@spec-reviewer
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 78 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 4e3cd330b85e
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository SyloRei/claude-godmode (3 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 825 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
researcher
General-purpose research agent that scales depth and breadth to match any research task. Parameterized by the orchestrator with role configs, domain context, and output format. Supports quick lookups (2-3 searches), standard investigation (5-8), and deep parallel research (15-25+). Used by /research, /deep-research…
northstar-validator
Validation agent for North Star Advisor. Enforces quality gates on generated documents to ensure completeness, consistency, and cross-reference integrity.
northstar-researcher
Research agent for North Star Advisor. Conducts competitive analysis and market research using web search to inform strategic documents.
northstar-generator
Document generation agent for North Star Advisor. Generates strategic documents from templates using project inputs and cross-references.
ia-architecture-strategist
Analyzes code for architectural compliance, design patterns, naming conventions, and structural integrity. Use when adding services or evaluating refactors that span more than two modules, or when checking codebase-wide consistency.
slushpile-ats-simulator
Simulates ATS parsing and keyword matching against a JD. Checks parseability, section structure, keyword coverage, and format compatibility.