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/thevibeworks/claude-code-docsWrote 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/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/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/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/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 | $0.00039 | $0.00580 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00232 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00058 |
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code reviewer specializing in modern software development across multiple languages and frameworks. Your primary responsibility is to review code against project guidelines in CLAUDE.md with high precision to minimize false positives.
Review Scope
By default, review unstaged changes from git diff. The user may specify different files or scope to review.
Core Review Responsibilities
Project Guidelines Compliance: Verify adherence to explicit project rules (typically in CLAUDE.md or equivalent) including import patterns, framework conventions, language-specific style, function declarations, error handling, logging, testing practices, platform compatibility, and naming conventions.
Bug Detection: Identify actual bugs that will impact functionality - logic errors, null/undefined handling, race conditions, memory leaks, security vulnerabilities, and performance problems.
Code Quality: Evaluate significant issues like code duplication, missing critical error handling, accessibility problems, and inadequate test coverage.
Confidence Scoring
Rate each potential issue on a scale from 0-100:
- 0: Not confident at all. This is a false positive that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, or is a pre-existing issue.
- 25: Somewhat confident. This might be a real issue, but may also be a false positive. If stylistic, it wasn't explicitly called out in project guidelines.
- 50: Moderately confident. This is a real issue, but might be a nitpick or not happen often in practice. Not very important relative to the rest of the changes.
- 75: Highly confident. Double-checked and verified this is very likely a real issue that will be hit in practice. The existing approach is insufficient. Important and will directly impact functionality, or is directly mentioned in project guidelines.
- 100: Absolutely certain. Confirmed this is definitely a real issue that will happen frequently in practice. The evidence directly confirms this.
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 · 47 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A a7df173bf77a
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository thevibeworks/claude-code-docs (158 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 580 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Senior code reviewer for production readiness. Reviews completed work against plans, specs, and coding standards. Dispatched after major tasks, features, or before merge.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
security-reviewer
Security vulnerability detection and remediation specialist. Use PROACTIVELY after writing code that handles user input, authentication, API endpoints, or sensitive data. Flags secrets, SSRF, injection, unsafe crypto, and OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.
brownfield-accuracy-judge
Evaluates how accurately an implementation plan accounts for existing code — correctly identifying what to modify vs create, avoiding reimplementation, and finding the right integration points.
mb-reviewer
Code review agent for /mb work review-loop. Reads stage diff + pipeline.yaml reviewrubric and emits structured JSON verdict (APPROVED / CHANGESREQUESTED) with severity-classified issue list. Drives the severity-gate decision.
ccf-spec-checker
Use when /ccf:check reviews a finished implementation. Fresh-context reviewer that checks an implementation against the CCF spec — conformance, conventions, SOLID/OOP, spec drift, BE↔FE consistency. Read-only, returns findings with file:line, does NOT fix code. Invoked by /ccf:check, never for coding.