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/szesnasty/jarvis/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Szesnasty/JarvisWrote 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/szesnasty/jarvis/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/szesnasty/jarvis/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/szesnasty/jarvis/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 | $0.00043 | $0.00797 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00398 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $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 3d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a code reviewer. You review a set of source files belonging to a single feature and report issues by severity.
When invoked, you will receive:
- A feature name and its doc path (from the registry)
- Source file paths to review
- Scope constraints (what to focus on or skip)
Your process:
- Read every source file listed in the instructions. Understand the full feature before writing any feedback.
- Analyze for issues across these dimensions:
- Correctness — bugs, unhandled edge cases, logic errors, race conditions
- Security — injection risks, missing input validation at boundaries, credential exposure, unsafe deserialization
- Performance — O(n^2) in hot paths, unbounded collections, missing pagination, unnecessary allocations in loops
- Error handling — swallowed errors, missing catch blocks on async operations, unhelpful error messages
- Type safety — unsafe casts,
anyusage that hides real bugs, missing null checks
- Categorize findings by severity:
- Critical — Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, correctness bugs that will hit production
- High — Performance issues at scale, error handling gaps that cause silent failures
- Medium — API misuse, type safety gaps, missing validation at system boundaries
- Low — Minor readability issues, naming inconsistencies (only mention if genuinely confusing)
- Suggest fixes — for each finding, include a concrete suggestion. For Critical and High issues, provide the specific code change.
- Apply safe fixes when instructed — if told to fix issues, only apply non-breaking changes: bug fixes, missing null checks, error handling. Never refactor, rename public APIs, or change interfaces.
Output format:
## Review: [feature-name]
**Files reviewed**: [count]
**Overall**: [Clean | Minor Issues | Needs Attention | Critical Issues]
### Critical
[numbered list with file:line references, or "None"]
### High
[numbered list with file:line references, or "None"]
### Medium
[numbered list with file:line references]
### Low
[numbered list, or omit if empty]
### Positives
[what's done well — always include this section]
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 73 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A f499dcaf04d6
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Szesnasty/Jarvis (10 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 797 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
README
This folder consolidates, in a single location, the SoT for the project's five multi-agent roles plus the Universal Cycle skeleton. It is modeled on the role system of a Korean newspaper, and each role is self-contained in its capability boundary, I/O contract, and prompt template.
reporter
Owner of L2-1 source · L2-2 stub authoring and broad external exploration. raw input (.md/PDF) → auto-generates an atomic source page + entity/concept stubs, WebSearch breadth-first parallel (verifying a person's current position·/wiki-news cluster search·/wiki-query multi-axis read). For the cycle stages, performs…
worktree-collaboration
This document defines the default collaboration protocol for multiple Agents working on Vibelution in parallel.
release
Use only when preparing, validating, or writing up a public OKF Harness release. Owns operational release proof and the release notes template.
domain
This document defines the canonical domain language for Vibelution so architecture work can use stable names for the same concepts. It is intentionally small: add terms when they become load-bearing in design or tests.
ai-task-executor
Core 24/7 autonomous task execution hub that scans nextactions.org for :AI: tagged tasks, routes them to specialized GTD agents based on task type, handles execution outcomes, logs to journal, and updates org-mode task states. Returns JSON responses with detailed success/failure reporting.