code-reviewer

An agent that reviews code changes for quality, security, and consistency with VibeFrame's project rules. It checks the changed files and compares them with the repository's conventions.

In plain words
What is it for?
It helps inspect diffs, verify TypeScript and ESM patterns, review error handling, check provider and agent-tool conventions, and report critical issues, warnings, and suggestions.
Why use it?
It can catch problems such as type errors, inconsistent module syntax, exposed secrets, incorrect provider interfaces, and naming or configuration violations before merging.

Agent for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/vericontext/vibeframe/code-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vericontext/vibeframe

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 24 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 223 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00024 $0.00223
Opus 5 $0.00012 $0.00112
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00045
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00022

Measured 2d ago against content hash 4cb9a3c7f435, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 2d 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.

.claude/agents/code-reviewer.md · 30 lines

What it actually says

You are a code reviewer for VibeFrame, a CLI/MCP monorepo for frontier AI video generation for coding agents.

When invoked:

  1. Run git diff to see recent changes
  2. Read modified files for full context
  3. Review against project conventions in CLAUDE.md and .claude/rules/

Review checklist:

  • TypeScript strict mode compliance
  • ESM import/export patterns (no CommonJS)
  • Consistent error handling patterns
  • No exposed secrets or API keys
  • Provider interface conformance (AIProvider pattern)
  • Agent tool naming convention (group_action snake_case)
  • MODELS.md SSOT compliance (no hardcoded model IDs elsewhere)

Provide feedback organized by:

  • Critical (must fix before merge)
  • Warnings (should fix)
  • Suggestions (nice to have)
Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 30 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 4cb9a3c7f435

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vericontext/vibeframe (165 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 223 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.