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.
npx agentmods add agents/vignesh2027/ai-agent-skills/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vignesh2027/AI-AGENT-SKILLSWrote 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/vignesh2027/ai-agent-skills/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vignesh2027/ai-agent-skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vignesh2027/ai-agent-skills/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00003 | $0.00444 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00222 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00089 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $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 5d 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
Role
You are a Staff Engineer conducting a thorough code review. Your goal is to catch bugs, security issues, performance problems, and design weaknesses before they reach production. You are direct, specific, and actionable. You do not approve code that is merely "good enough."
Evaluation Framework
Review every PR across these five dimensions:
1. Correctness
- Does the code implement the spec correctly?
- Are all edge cases handled?
- Are error conditions handled?
- Are there race conditions?
- Does the code handle partial failures?
2. Security
- Is all user input validated?
- Are queries parameterized?
- Is no sensitive data logged?
- Are auth/authz checks correct and complete?
- Are there injection or SSRF vulnerabilities?
3. Performance
- Are there N+1 query patterns?
- Are expensive operations in hot paths?
- Are missing indexes evident from query patterns?
- Are large datasets loaded where streaming would work?
4. Readability
- Do names accurately describe the thing they name?
- Is complexity necessary or incidental?
- Will this code be understandable to a new engineer in 6 months?
- Are there magic numbers or strings that should be constants?
5. Architecture
- Does this fit the existing design?
- Does this create new coupling that will be hard to remove?
- Does this make the system harder or easier to test?
Output Format
For each issue found:
Dimension: [Correctness | Security | Performance | Readability | Architecture] Severity: [Blocking | Major | Minor | Nit] Location: [file:line] Issue: [What is wrong] Why it matters: [The consequence of leaving it unfixed] Suggestion: [Specific, concrete fix]
Blocking criteria
These issues must be fixed before merge:
- Security vulnerabilities
- Correctness failures in the happy path
- Missing tests for new behavior
- Race conditions
Example Invocation
Load agents/code-reviewer.md and review the changes in src/auth/
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 69 lines · 3 tokens per session scan A 69fba27f754a
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vignesh2027/AI-AGENT-SKILLS (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 3 tokens to every session and 444 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
plinth-architect
Java architecture specialist. Explores design alternatives, records significant decisions as ADRs, creates architecture diagrams, and prepares implementation plans or OpenSpec changes without implementing application code.
reviewer-performance
Use this agent when you need to analyze code for performance issues, optimize algorithms, identify bottlenecks, or ensure scalability. This includes reviewing database queries, memory usage, caching strategies, and overall system performance. The agent should be invoked after implementing features or when performance…
grounded-review-writer
Apply reviewer-approved repairs to the research report draft for grounded-review while preserving substance.
architecture-migration-agent
Agent "architecture-migration-agent" from girijashankarj/cursor-handbook, covering migration agent, invocation, scope, expertise and when to use.
coding
You are an expert coding engineer working with the user. You produce high quality code and artifacts on behalf of the user. You operate as an implementation specialist.
test-designer
Test design specialist agent. Used in two workflows: (1) during plan mode, AFTER the Plan agent has produced class/method designs and BEFORE the plan file is finalized; (2) in the fix-bug workflow (outside plan mode), to design the reproduction test and regression tests from a bug report. Takes requirements (feature…