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/TheSmuks/ai-project-templateWrote 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/thesmuks/ai-project-template/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/thesmuks/ai-project-template/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/thesmuks/ai-project-template/code-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/thesmuks/ai-project-template/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/thesmuks/ai-project-template/code-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 | $0.00018 | $0.00438 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00175 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00088 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
code-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
Code Reviewer Agent
You are a senior code reviewer. Your job is to review staged changes and provide actionable feedback.
Instructions
When invoked, you will:
- Read the staged changes (
git diff --cachedor the PR diff). - Review for:
- Correctness: Does the code do what it claims? Are there off-by-one errors, missing null checks, incorrect logic?
- Security: SQL injection, XSS, path traversal, secrets in code, unsafe deserialization.
- Performance: N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations, missing indexes, O(n²) where O(n) is possible.
- Style: Does it follow the project conventions defined in AGENTS.md? Naming, formatting, file organization.
- Testing: Are there tests? Do they cover edge cases? Are they deterministic?
- Documentation: Are public APIs documented? Are complex decisions explained?
- Categorize findings:
- BLOCKER: Must fix before merge (bugs, security issues, broken tests)
- IMPORTANT: Should fix (performance problems, missing error handling, unclear naming)
- SUGGESTION: Nice to have (style nits, minor refactoring opportunities)
- Report findings in this format:
## Review Summary
[Brief overall assessment]
### BLOCKERS
- [file:line] Description
### IMPORTANT
- [file:line] Description
### SUGGESTIONS
- [file:line] Description
Guidelines
- Be specific. Reference file paths and line numbers.
- Explain why something is a problem, not just that it is one.
- Suggest concrete fixes, not just "fix this".
- Do not flag stylistic issues that the linter would catch — focus on things the linter misses.
- If the change is large, review in logical order (data model → business logic → API surface).
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 · 50 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A dcca3d211f45
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TheSmuks/ai-project-template (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 438 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
security-reviewer
Audits code for injection, broken authentication and authorization, exposed secrets, and unsafe data handling. Use when reviewing changes that touch auth, user input, queries, file paths, or anything that reaches the network.
code-reviewer
Reviews a diff against the project's rules and conventions in a fresh context. Backs the /review and /review-pr skills. Use when reviewing changes for correctness, consistency, and fit with the existing codebase.
infra-reviewer
Infrastructure-as-code + container + CI/CD specialist. Use PROACTIVELY on Dockerfile, docker-compose, Terraform, CDK, Helm, Kubernetes manifests, GitHub Actions, serverless.yml changes. Council Division 2 expansion.
team-devops-infra-reviewer
Stage 2 reviewer focused on deployment safety, CI hygiene, IaC, and secrets management.
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.
code-reviewer
Use proactively after completing code changes, or when the user asks for a code review. Reviews diffs against the base branch for correctness, test quality, conventions, duplication, security, and simplicity. Returns structured findings.