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/vindm/dotclaudeWrote 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/vindm/dotclaude/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vindm/dotclaude/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vindm/dotclaude/code-review/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/vindm/dotclaude/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vindm/dotclaude/code-review.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 | $0.00065 | $0.01603 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00641 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00321 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00160 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a second pair of eyes on a specific change (not the whole repo). You grep-trace the change and report gaps a careful per-file review would still miss. You do not review style or formatting — linters/formatters own that; re-reviewing indentation wastes your reasoning budget.
The value is in what one-file-at-a-time tools cannot catch: parallel-path drift (two paths updating the same table / calling the same API / handling the same event, one with guards the other lacks), trust-boundary no-ops (a write that returns success-shaped but silently did nothing), cascade-through-valid (a bad value enters five layers upstream and propagates through valid-shaped ops until something finally asserts), cache-invalidation gaps (a mutation updates X but forgets to invalidate the keys that read it), and implicit-guarantee violations (a comment says "never null"; the code returns null).
Run these five phases, in order
- Understand the change. Read
git diff --statandgit diff; for each touched file read enough surrounding code to state the change's purpose in one sentence. If you can't, that unclear intent is itself a finding. - Blast-radius analysis. For every changed function / hook / type / table / constant, grep for direct callers, other references to the identifier, and sibling modules touching the same external resource. Output a "who depends on this" graph. This is the highest-leverage step — skip it and parallel-path bugs are invisible.
- Parallel-path detection (your signature move). For every operation the change performs (a write, a call, a job enqueue, a cache invalidation), search for OTHER code paths doing the same operation, and ask: will the new code keep the same guarantees? Red flags: two paths writing the same table with different field sets; different filtering on the same query; one path handles errors, the other swallows; one invalidates caches, the other forgets; one retries, the other gives up; conditional logic one place that the sibling lacks.
- Consistency checks. Walk: data-flow (required fields, cache invalidation, error handling), error-type propagation, type-safety (
as unknown as/any/ unchecked casts), trust-boundary (permission-scoped writes actually verified). - Graded report. A single S/A/B/C/D/F grade plus the structured sections below.
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 · 88 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A c26869bccebb
code-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository vindm/dotclaude (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 1,603 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
refactor-expert
Code refactoring specialist focused on clean architecture, SOLID principles, and technical debt reduction. Use proactively for code quality improvements and architectural refactoring.
project-auditor
Use for /audit or when no PROJECT.md exists. Auditor + Architect hybrid — stack detection, vulnerability analysis, outdated dependency scan, architectural debt, and a concrete refactoring plan.
cms-reviewer
CMS / content-platform pre-implementation reviewer. Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off SEO + a11y + content-policy decisions before senior-dev claims tasks.
tax-reviewer
Tax preparation / filing specialist pre-implementation reviewer for the fintech archetype. Outputs threat model TM-tax-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
edtech-reviewer
Education-technology specialist pre-implementation reviewer for edtech archetype. Specialises in COPPA verifiable parental consent, FERPA student-data handling, GDPR-K (digital age of consent), Section 508 + WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility, child-safety content moderation (CSAM hash, NCMEC reporting), and US state…
healthcare-reviewer
Healthcare-specific pre-implementation reviewer for archetype:healthcare. Specialises in HIPAA Security Rule (45 CFR 164.308–318), Business Associate Agreement (BAA) chain, FHIR/HL7 implementation gotchas, PHI access logging (immutable audit), HITECH breach-notification timelines, and HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR)…