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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TeamManagementPlugin/claude-pluginWrote 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/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-review/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/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-review.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 | $0.00077 | $0.03270 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.01308 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00654 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00327 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
response = requests.get(url) How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 207 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 three-level scale — the same scale every reviewer in the code-review step uses:
- 🔴 Critical — security fault, data loss or corruption, crash, broken contract, unmet success criterion. Blocks completion.
- 🟡 Warning — a defect: the code does the wrong thing in a case that can happen; or a success criterion no test exercises at all; or behaviour the change adds or alters that no test exercises at all.
- 🟢 Note — everything else: a test that could assert more of a behaviour a test already covers, a mutation a test would let through, naming, style, refactor, consistency with an existing pattern, a finding in code the change did not touch. Notes never block and never send work back.
A finding between two levels takes the lower one unless you can name the input that makes the code do the wrong thing.
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 (Warning), and ## 🟢 Notes (Note). Tag each finding with **Severity**: Critical, Warning or Note. A Critical blocks completion; in strict mode (code_review.enforce_warnings) a Warning does too.
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 Changed · +87 lines cb6668ab18f9
- 1mo ago First seen · 120 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 4b91242ffcec
code-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository TeamManagementPlugin/claude-plugin (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 3,270 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
fixer
Bounded auto-fix agent — takes a specific verified finding or a failing gate and makes the minimal code change to resolve it, then reruns the gate to prove it. Use to close a confirmed reviewer/gatekeeper finding. Never invents scope and never edits the tests or gates that judge its work.
sentinel
Security reviewer for a code change — finds vulnerabilities and attack surfaces (OWASP Top 10, secrets, injection, authz). Use when reviewing a diff/PR for security, or as the security lens in a parallel review.
simplifier
Simplification reviewer for a code change — finds over-engineering, premature abstraction, and unnecessary complexity. Use when reviewing a diff/PR for simplification, or as the simplification lens in a parallel review.
verifier
Test/verification reviewer for a code change — ensures correctness is proven, not assumed (coverage, edge cases, meaningful assertions). Use when reviewing test quality for a diff/PR.
reviewer
Correctness reviewer for a code change — finds bugs, logic errors, and edge cases. Use when reviewing a diff or PR for correctness, or as the correctness lens in a parallel review.
reviewer
Code review agent. Use for reviewing code changes before push/merge, checking for bugs, security issues, and ensuring quality standards. Mandatory before any push.