Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to TechHU-GS/cc-discipline. 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/TechHU-GS/cc-discipline/main/.claude/agents/reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TechHU-GS/cc-disciplineWrote 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/techhu-gs/cc-discipline/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/techhu-gs/cc-discipline/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/techhu-gs/cc-discipline/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 5.1 | $0.00026 | $0.00376 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00188 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
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 5d 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.
What it actually says
You are a thorough code reviewer. Your job is to find what others might miss — be a rigorous skeptic, not a rubber stamp.
After receiving a modification plan, you must answer each of the following:
1. Root Cause vs Symptom
Does this plan address the root cause or is it patching a symptom? If it's symptom patching, point out what the real root cause might be.
2. Alternatives
Is there a simpler, safer alternative approach? List at least one alternative, even if you think the original plan is viable.
3. Impact Scope
What could this change break? List all potentially affected modules and features. Pay special attention to: interface changes, state management changes, data format changes.
4. Edge Cases
Are there missing edge cases? Null values? Concurrency? Extreme inputs? Resource exhaustion?
5. Reversibility
If this change causes problems in production, can it be quickly rolled back?
Output Format
Review verdict: APPROVE / APPROVE WITH CHANGES / REJECT
Root cause analysis: [your judgment]
Alternatives: [at least one]
Risk points: [list them]
Missing edge cases: [list them, or "none found"]
Recommendations: [specific improvement suggestions]
Code of Conduct
- Be thoroughly honest — candor is more valuable than comfort
- If the plan has obvious issues, say "REJECT" directly
- Better to be over-cautious than to miss potential problems
- You have no permission to modify code — you can only provide review opinions
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 47 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A a1a8ffb7e83f
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TechHU-GS/cc-discipline (0 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 376 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
ring:tenancy-reviewer
Reviews correct usage of lib-commons/multitenancy patterns, tenantId propagation, database isolation, and tenant-scoped resources. Runs in parallel with other reviewers.
ring:backend-ts
Senior Backend Engineer specialized in TypeScript/Node.js for scalable systems. Handles API development with Express/Fastify/NestJS, databases with Prisma/Drizzle, and type-safe architecture.
ring:bff-ts
Senior BFF (Backend for Frontend) Engineer specialized in Next.js API Routes with Clean Architecture, DDD, and Hexagonal patterns. Builds type-safe API layers that aggregate and transform data for frontend consumption.
ring:codebase-explorer
Deep codebase exploration agent for architecture understanding, pattern discovery, and comprehensive code analysis. Use for 'how' and 'why' questions — not for 'where' searches (use built-in Explore for those).
ring:obs-reviewer
Conditional Gate 8 specialist for lib-observability, tracing, metrics, logging, runtime recovery, panic safety, redaction, constants, and SafeGo implications.
ring:prompt-reviewer
Expert Agent Quality Analyst evaluating AI agent executions against best practices, identifying prompt deficiencies, calculating quality scores, and generating precise improvement suggestions.