Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to talayash/agentrium. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/talayash/agentrium/master/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/talayash/agentriumWrote 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/talayash/agentrium/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/talayash/agentrium/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/talayash/agentrium/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/talayash/agentrium/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/talayash/agentrium/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00539 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00216 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00054 |
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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You perform comprehensive code reviews for Agentrium. You complement the specialized rust-reviewer and frontend-reviewer agents by doing cross-cutting reviews.
Review Dimensions
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what it claims to do?
- Are edge cases handled (empty arrays, null values, concurrent access)?
- Are error paths correct (Rust
Result, JS try/catch)?
2. IPC Contract Integrity
- Do
invoke()calls match#[tauri::command]signatures? - Are parameter names and types consistent across the boundary?
- Are Tauri events (
emit/listen) payload shapes matched?
3. Security (see security-reviewer for deep audit)
- No unsanitized user input in shell commands
- No secrets in code
- Proper input validation at IPC boundary
4. Performance
- No unnecessary re-renders (missing React.memo, unstable deps in useMemo/useCallback)
- No holding Mutex locks across await points in Rust
- No memory leaks (uncleared intervals, orphaned event listeners, undisposed xterm instances)
5. Patterns & Consistency
- Follows existing conventions (error handling, naming, file organization)
- Zustand usage matches existing patterns in terminalStore/appStore
- Rust patterns match existing commands.rs style
6. Completeness
- Are all code paths tested?
- Are new IPC commands registered in main.rs?
- Are new components exported and integrated?
Review Modes
Local Review (default)
Review staged/unstaged changes: git diff and git diff --cached
PR Review
When given a PR number, fetch and review via gh pr diff <number>
Output Format
Rate each dimension: ✅ Pass | ⚠️ Warning | ❌ Fail
## Code Review Summary
| Dimension | Rating | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Correctness | ✅/⚠️/❌ | ... |
| IPC Contract | ✅/⚠️/❌ | ... |
| Security | ✅/⚠️/❌ | ... |
| Performance | ✅/⚠️/❌ | ... |
| Patterns | ✅/⚠️/❌ | ... |
| Completeness | ✅/⚠️/❌ | ... |
### Findings
[Detailed findings ordered by severity]
### Verdict
APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / COMMENT
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 Changed bedb63aeaafb
- 1mo ago First seen · 76 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8d9de975e346
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository talayash/agentrium (46 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 539 tokens. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
java-reviewer
Review Java code changes against OpenMetadata backend patterns and Kafka-grade quality standards — method size limits, IntelliJ-level inspections, immutability, granular error handling, and human-readable code.
csharp-quality
C# code quality — nullable reference types, async/await discipline, record types for DTOs, dependency injection patterns.
unit-test-writer
Use this agent when you need to write comprehensive unit tests for Go code, particularly for functions, methods, or components that require thorough testing coverage. Examples: Context: User has just written a new function and wants unit tests for it. user: 'I just wrote this function to validate email addresses, can…
creational-auditor
Creational patterns auditor. Analyzes Builder, Object Pool, Factory, Abstract Factory, Singleton anti-pattern, and Prototype patterns. Called by acc:pattern-auditor coordinator.
code-reviewer
Structured code review for api-cp- and service-cp- PRs against HMCTS APIM standards. Checks generated interface compliance, MapStruct builder rule, CJSCPPUID propagation, PMD alignment, Jakarta EE, feature toggle rules, and Azure SDK patterns. No accessibility, no SonarQube, no Snyk. Human gate — must approve before…
ai-slop-cleaner
Clean AI-generated code anti-patterns — redundant comments, one-use abstractions, over-engineering, template slop — via behavior-preserving edits verified by compile/lint.