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/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/techhu-gs/cc-discipline/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/techhu-gs/cc-discipline/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 | $0.00026 | $0.00376 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00150 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 2mo 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.
- 2mo 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 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 376 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
review-rails
Rails conventions and architecture reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-rails with artifact paths. Ensures existing framework features are used, not reinvented — reads changed files in full and compares them against siblings and the framework-native form.
review-tests-minitest
Minitest test quality and coverage reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-tests-minitest in repos that test with minitest. Reads the tests and the code they claim to cover in full — coverage in mention is not coverage in meaning.
review-docs
Documentation reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-docs with artifact paths. Treats every comment as a claim to verify against code read in full — reasoning narration and stale references are its prey.
review-performance
Performance reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-performance with artifact paths. Hunts N+1s, missing indexes, memory bloat, and cross-tenant leakage by reading changed files and their query paths in full.
review-tests-rspec
RSpec test quality and coverage reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-tests-rspec in repos that test with RSpec. Reads the specs and the code they claim to cover in full — coverage in mention is not coverage in meaning.
review-ticket-delivery
Ticket-delivery reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-ticket-delivery with artifact paths. Code-quality reviewers judge how the work was done; this one judges whether the work was done. Runs on every review; carries the always-on security sweep.