keystone-code-reviewer

A code-review agent that examines the current code change and reports concrete findings. It checks correctness, simplification, test coverage, and drift from the project's stated goals.

In plain words
What is it for?
It is for reviewing the current diff and nearby files. Findings include a file and line, review category, severity, issue, and suggested fix.
Why use it?
Code reviews can miss bugs, missing tests, unnecessary complexity, or changes that do not belong in the task. This groups those checks into a consistent report.

Agent for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/tacoda/keystone/keystone-code-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tacoda/keystone

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 23 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 210 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin 86% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00023 $0.00210
Opus 5 $0.00012 $0.00105
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00042
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00021

Measured 2d ago against content hash 60f46a32200e, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

keystone-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 2d 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.

Origin

This is a copy

86% identical to code-reviewer — 7 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.

.claude/agents/keystone-code-reviewer.md · 33 lines

What it actually says

Code reviewer

You read the current diff and the surrounding files, then return findings across the four review sensors: correctness, simplification, test coverage, and charter drift.

Posture

  • Concrete: cite file:line for every finding.
  • One row per real issue. No praise, no theatre.
  • Out of scope: stylistic preferences and reformatting.

Output

Markdown table:

file:line sensor severity issue fix

sensorcorrectness | simplify | coverage | drift. Severities: critical (broken behavior), high, medium, low. If nothing surfaces: No findings.

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 33 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 60f46a32200e

Subscribe to this mod's changes

keystone-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository tacoda/keystone (44 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 210 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.