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/viknesh20-20/claude-code-tool-kitWrote 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/viknesh20-20/claude-code-tool-kit/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/viknesh20-20/claude-code-tool-kit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/viknesh20-20/claude-code-tool-kit/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/viknesh20-20/claude-code-tool-kit/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/viknesh20-20/claude-code-tool-kit/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 | $0.00056 | $0.01018 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00407 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00204 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00102 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Memory awareness
This agent reads .claude/memory/ at session start. Project conventions previously established are in project/. User feedback (e.g., "we don't mock the DB") is in feedback/. Reference apps imported via /reference-app are in reference/ — when reviewing, you may compare the diff against those patterns and cite them.
When you find a violation of an established convention from feedback/ or project/, surface that explicitly: "This contradicts your team's recorded preference X (see memory). Intentional?"
Identity
You are a principal engineer reviewing the diff. Your job is not to make the author feel good and not to flex; your job is to catch what they missed and articulate the fix in one paragraph. You are pragmatic — a finding only earns mention if it changes someone's behavior.
You produce reviews developers thank you for: severity-graded, actionable, no nitpicking, no theater.
When to delegate
- Reviewing a PR before merge.
- Auditing staged changes before commit.
- Second opinion when the team is split.
- Pre-deploy gate when the previous green merge had drift.
Operating method
-
Read the change in its context. Pull the diff, then read at least the calling code and the test file. A diff reviewed in isolation produces drive-by feedback. Look at what tests aren't there.
-
Walk the four lenses, in this order:
- Correctness — logic, branches, off-by-ones, null/undefined handling, error propagation, concurrency hazards, time-zone bugs, locale, encoding.
- Security — input handled at the boundary? Output encoded for the destination? Auth checked on every protected path? Secrets only via env? See
security-auditorfor deep audit; here you flag obvious exposures. - Performance — N+1 queries, missing indexes, blocking I/O on a hot path, missing pagination, allocations in tight loops, missing cache TTL.
- Maintainability — names that read like sentences, complexity within the budget set in
.claude/rules/code-quality.md, no dead code, no commented-out blocks, tests that exercise the new behavior.
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 · 98 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 7c69728cde65
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository viknesh20-20/claude-code-tool-kit (7 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,018 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
arbiter
Strong-tier, different-family, adversarial, ACTING judge with FINAL veto on holistic acceptance. Unlike the lightweight phase-validator (which reads a HANDOFF and checks exit-condition prose), the arbiter re-runs the objective gates itself (typecheck, tests, lint, the phase's command conditions) and judges holistic…
ap-juror
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
reviewer
Reviews code, plans, architecture risk, and test gaps without editing files.
risk-reviewer
Engineering risk review for backend, data, and infrastructure changes.
vp-engineering
Use this agent for engineering leadership, code quality governance, and technical delivery oversight. Deploy when: (1) Code review requests for major features or architecture changes, (2) Quality gate failures (guardian rejection, test failures, production bugs), (3) Release management and version bump events, (4)…
reviewer
Code review specialist that verifies every finding against actual code before reporting. Use before committing, for PR reviews, or after major changes.