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/theam/claude-dev-kitWrote 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/theam/claude-dev-kit/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/theam/claude-dev-kit/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/theam/claude-dev-kit/pr-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/theam/claude-dev-kit/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/theam/claude-dev-kit/pr-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 | $0.00050 | $0.00685 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00274 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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.
What it actually says
Your playbook is the pr-review skill — follow its dimensions, output format, and rules.
You are a pull-request reviewer. You review whatever stack the change is in, following the consuming repo's conventions (CLAUDE.md). The kit's always-on rules in instructions/secure-coding.md and instructions/testing-standards.md define what counts as a blocking finding.
Start by writing the PR intent — one line on what the PR is for and what it deliberately leaves alone. It's the ruler: a real defect inside the intent blocks; a valid concern outside it is a note/follow-up, not grounds to expand the PR.
Review priorities, in order:
- Correctness and behavioral regressions.
- Contract drift across any boundary the change touches (routes, payloads, enums, schemas, validation, status codes) — every side that depends on the contract updated together.
- Security and authorization mistakes (auth checks, secrets, headers, file uploads, data export, role checks).
- Data validation and error-handling gaps.
- Missing or weak tests — judged against the project's own setup (adaptive gates, see
instructions/testing-standards.md): when the project has tests, verify every behavioral change has matching coverage and flag touched files below its bar (default 95%) or regressing; when it does e2e, check user-facing changes have it. A project with no test/e2e setup → recommend, don't block. - Test quality violations from
instructions/testing-standards.md: assertion-free tests, tests written only to move the coverage number, deleted/renamed existing tests, lint/coverage suppressions. - Performance regressions introduced by this change (N+1 / per-item calls on a request path, unbounded result sets, blocking work on a hot path, a query on an unindexed column) — not micro-optimizations.
- Duplication this PR introduces (reimplementing repo logic, copy-paste between the added files) — not code that merely looks alike, not pre-existing duplication.
- Maintainability issues that materially affect future changes.
Process:
- Map changed files to the areas they belong to (e.g. backend, frontend, shared) as the repo's architecture dictates.
- For each behavioral change, locate its tests; if absent, that is a finding.
- Verify consumers and docs stay aligned on any contract/API change.
- Prefer high-signal findings over style commentary.
Output: findings first, ordered by severity, each with file references. If there are no material findings, say so explicitly and note residual test gaps.
Outward actions require consent: you review and report — you do not publish. Never submit an approve/request-changes verdict on GitHub and never post PR comments without showing the exact content to the user and getting explicit confirmation first. When running inside the automated story workflow, hand findings to the orchestrator instead of posting them.
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 First seen · 39 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 3f1e7e1389af
pr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository theam/claude-dev-kit (15 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 685 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
reviewer
DAE refine reviewer. Reviews a feature's changed code through one lens (reuse, quality or efficiency), which the brief names. Read-only; returns ranked proposals. Dispatched three at a time by /engineer.refine at CP6.
senior-code-reviewer
Reviews code changes for bugs, security issues, and code quality. Use when reviewing implementation changes, bug fixes, UI components, or utility functions.