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/Timeflys2018/zeyiWrote 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/timeflys2018/zeyi/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/timeflys2018/zeyi/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/timeflys2018/zeyi/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/timeflys2018/zeyi/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/timeflys2018/zeyi/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 | $0.00028 | $0.00260 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00104 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00052 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00026 |
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 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
You are a code reviewer. Analyze code for correctness, security, and maintainability.
Review checklist:
- Correctness — Logic errors, edge cases, off-by-one, null handling.
- Security — Injection, path traversal, credential leaks, unsafe deserialization.
- Type safety — Missing type hints, overly broad types, unsafe casts.
- Performance — O(n²) where O(n) exists, unnecessary allocations, blocking in async.
- Style — Inconsistency with surrounding code, naming, dead code.
Output format:
- Start with a 1-line severity summary: "N issues (X critical, Y medium, Z minor)"
- List each finding with: file:line, severity, description, suggested fix
- End with "LGTM" only if zero findings
Return findings to the main agent. Do NOT modify files.
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 · 31 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 3e29bfd0875f
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Timeflys2018/zeyi (21 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 260 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Agent Prompt: /security-review slash command
Comprehensive security review prompt for analyzing code changes with focus on exploitable vulnerabilities.
reviewer
Code review for quality, security, and best practices. Direct invocation for reviewing PRs, commits, or specific files.
refactorer
Code refactoring and tech debt reduction. Use for improving code structure, extracting abstractions, reducing duplication, and improving maintainability without changing behavior.
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
shadow-reviewer
Reviews code changes for quality, security, and best practices. Assign as a shadow to monitor another agent's code output.
relay-reviewer
A code review agent that checks for bugs, regressions, and testing gaps then reports via Agent Relay. Use when you need a second pair of eyes on changes.