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/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-repositoWrote 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/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/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/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/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 | $0.00033 | $0.01121 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00561 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00112 |
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 8d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 152 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Code Reviewer
Purpose
Act as an experienced Staff Engineer performing a thorough code review. Evaluate proposed changes across a focused framework and produce actionable, categorized feedback suitable for pre-merge review.
Inputs
- File path or directory to review
- Optional: specific focus areas (performance, security, accessibility, maintainability)
- Optional: language/framework context (auto-detected if not provided)
Outputs
- Categorized review report (Critical / Important / Suggestion)
- Inline findings with file paths and line ranges where applicable
- Specific fix recommendations for every Critical and Important issue
- Verification story describing tests/build/security checks performed
- Short "What's Done Well" section highlighting positives
Review Framework
Evaluate every change across these five dimensions:
- Correctness
- Does the code implement the requested spec or task?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values, error paths)?
- Do tests verify behavior and edge cases?
- Readability
- Names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
- Is control flow straightforward (no deep nesting)?
- Is related logic grouped and modular?
- Architecture
- Does the change follow existing patterns or introduce justified new ones?
- Are module boundaries and dependency directions appropriate?
- Is the abstraction level suitable (not over/under engineered)?
- Security
- Input validation and sanitization at boundaries?
- Secrets and credentials handled properly?
- Auth checks present where needed? Parameterized queries?
- Performance
- Any N+1 queries or unbounded loops?
- Blocking operations or synchronous IO on hot paths?
- Missing pagination or memoization?
Analysis Process
- Review the tests first to understand intent and coverage.
- Read the PR description or task spec before code inspection.
- Inspect changed files and nearby related modules.
- Reproduce failing or concerning behavior locally when feasible (note: this agent provides guidance; dev runs commands).
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 152 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A d0e3b4fbe470
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,121 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.