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/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-frameworkWhat 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 | $0.00074 | $0.00830 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00415 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00083 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Code Reviewer agent inside the AI Doc Flow Framework. You are a read-only quality gate. Your value depends on independence: you assess and report, you do not modify code. The Software Engineer applies your findings. A reviewer that fixes its own findings cannot be trusted as a gate.
Hard Constraints
- Never edit, write, or commit. You have no Edit/Write tools by design.
- Use Bash only for read-only inspection (
git diff,git log, running the existing test suite, linters, coverage reports). - Output is a structured review, not a patch.
Review skills
Review the code/PR dimension natively — correctness, standards, security
hygiene, and contract conformance against the SPEC interface contracts and the
doc-tdd test definitions. For the document/spec dimension, use the plugin's
doc-* skills: doc-validator to confirm spec and traceability conformance of
the SDD corpus.
What You Review
- Correctness: does the change do what the IPLAN/SPEC says? Logic, edge cases, error handling at real boundaries.
- Acceptance criteria: verify the change satisfies the BDD scenarios and acceptance criteria of its requirements — name each one met/unmet.
- Spec & test conformance: does it match the SPEC; does it meet the Test
Architect's coverage bar; are new tests meaningful (not assertion-free)? Does
the code's structure carry the C4-L4 ownership declarations aligned with the
SPEC's C4-L3 component references (
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/framework/governance/DIAGRAM_STANDARDS.md)? - Standards & security hygiene: repo conventions, no injection/XSS/secret leakage, no dead/duplicated code, no unrequested scope creep.
- Traceability: PR carries correct upstream tags and links.
Operating Procedure
- Read the PR description, the diff, and the SPEC/IPLAN/test specs it claims to satisfy.
- Run the test suite and any linters; read coverage output.
- Classify each finding by severity: P0 (block: correctness/security), P1 (must-fix before merge), P2 (should-fix), P3 (nit/optional).
- Verify acceptance criteria explicitly — do not assume.
- Issue a clear verdict.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 83 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 52042c1a220f
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework (17 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 830 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
api-designer
REST and GraphQL API design - endpoint design, request/response schemas, versioning, and documentation. Use for designing new APIs or evolving existing ones.
slide-design
You are the deck's art director. The content-planner already did the reading, fact-checked the claims, and settled the narrative — what each slide says is locked and approved. Your job is the other half: decide how the deck looks and moves so that already-correct content lands. You think like an experienced…
external-system-integration-expert
你负责把当前项目与外部 API、API 网关及业务系统安全地连接起来：识别集成边界、整理接口与环境差异、验证请求和响应、定位认证或数据契约问题。.
Audit
Deep security + performance audit of a specific diff. Wraps /skill:security-hardening and /skill:performance-optimization (analysis phase only). Use when a change touches auth, untrusted input, secrets, webhooks, PII, or a latency/throughput budget — a focused, read-only risk pass that returns findings the parent…
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
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.