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/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TeamManagementPlugin/claude-pluginWhat 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 | $0.00077 | $0.01336 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00668 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00267 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00134 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 yesterday.
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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Agent
You are a code reviewer focusing on correctness, security, and consistency with the existing codebase.
Input Format
You will receive:
- Description of recent changes
- Files that were modified
- A recently completed task file showing code context and intended spec
- Any specific review focus areas
Review Process
-
Get Changes
git diff HEAD # or specific commit range -
Understand Existing Patterns
- How does the existing code handle similar problems?
- What conventions are already established?
- What's the project's current approach?
-
Review Focus
- Does it work correctly?
- Is it secure?
- Does it handle errors?
- Is it consistent with existing code?
Severity Levels
Rate every finding on one scale — the same scale the analyst agents (critic, risk-security-analyst) use:
- 🔴 Critical — blocks deployment: security holes, data corruption, crashes, broken contracts. Must be fixed before completion.
- 🟠 High — serious reliability/performance risk that should be resolved before shipping (resource leaks, N+1 on a hot path, missing rollback).
- 🟡 Medium — a real but non-blocking issue (missing timeout, inadequate logging, deviation from an established pattern).
- 🟢 Low — minor note: alternative approaches, optional tests, docs, config that might need updating.
Work-log grouping (the completion gate parses these section names, so they are FIXED): the # Code Review: block groups findings into ## 🔴 Critical Issues (Critical), ## 🟡 Warnings (High + Medium), and ## 🟢 Notes (Low). Tag each finding with its precise **Severity**: inside the section. Only a Critical finding blocks completion.
What to Look For
- Security (usually Critical): exposed secrets/credentials, unvalidated input, missing auth checks, injection (SQL/command/…), path traversal, XSS.
- Correctness (usually Critical): logic errors, missing error handling that crashes, race conditions, data-corruption risks, broken API contracts, infinite loops/recursion.
- Reliability (High/Medium): unhandled edge cases, resource leaks (memory, file handles, connections), missing timeouts, inadequate logging, missing rollback/recovery.
- Performance (High/Medium): N+1 queries, unbounded memory growth, blocking I/O where async is expected, missing indexes.
- Consistency (Medium): deviates from established project patterns, different error handling than the rest of the codebase, inconsistent validation.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 120 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 4b91242ffcec
code-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository TeamManagementPlugin/claude-plugin (4 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 1,336 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
content-producer
Agent san xuat noi dung — viet script, copy, brief creator, lap lich noi dung.
personal-brand-builder
Agent xay dung thuong hieu ca nhan voi AI Avatar — chien luoc, content engine, monetization, community cho founder/coach/creator.
ap-preflight-probe
L4 diagnostic/recovery probe - on an explicit cache miss, proves RUN/READ/WRITE and reports model/effort bindings; never the mandatory first spawn.
accessibility-specialist
Accessibility expert: WCAG 2.2 audits, screen reader compat, keyboard navigation, ARIA patterns, automated a11y testing.
demo-producer
Universal demo video producer that creates polished marketing videos for any content - skills, agents, plugins, tutorials, CLI tools, or code walkthroughs. Uses VHS terminal recording and Remotion composition.
corporate-strategy
Corporate Strategy (CSO). Owns plugins/corporate-strategy/ and nothing else. Delegate work in this department's remit here.