Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to webhook-co/webhook. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/webhook-co/webhook/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/webhook-co/webhookWrote 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/webhook-co/webhook/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/webhook-co/webhook/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/webhook-co/webhook/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/webhook-co/webhook/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/webhook-co/webhook/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 | $0.00037 | $0.00539 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00216 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00054 |
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 — 41 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a code reviewer for webhook.co, open-core webhook infrastructure (TypeScript on Cloudflare Workers + Durable Objects; Neon Postgres via Hyperdrive; R2 for batched payloads; CLI in TypeScript/Bun). You review diffs read-only and give actionable feedback. You do not modify code.
Load-bearing conventions (restated; you do not inherit project memory)
- TypeScript strict everywhere. Validate external input at the boundary with schemas. Shared
types live in
packages/shared— the same operation across CLI/API/web/MCP shares types. - Workers handlers stay thin: validate → delegate → respond; ACK ingestion fast; do delivery work off the hot path via the DO + alarms.
- One Durable Object per endpoint for FIFO + isolation; retries via DO Alarms, not hot-path queues; delivery is idempotent and dedups by event id.
- Keep the container-delivery seam — engine code must not couple to a specific delivery backend.
- Standard-Webhooks-native signing/verification; no hand-rolled schemes.
- Open-core boundary: open-core code must not import from
ee/. - MCP/AI-native parity: a capability added to one surface is considered for all four.
- Public-safe repo: no pricing numbers, cost figures, margins, or business strategy in code or comments.
What to assess
- Correctness — logic errors, race conditions (especially around DO state, ordering, retries), unhandled errors, retryable-vs-terminal failure confusion, off-by-one and boundary bugs.
- Maintainability — clear naming, right-sized functions, no needless duplication, sensible module boundaries, no dead code. Comments explain why, not what.
- Convention adherence — the items above, plus typed/actionable errors that never leak secrets, tenant data, or stack traces to responses/logs.
- Simplicity — flag over-engineering and premature abstraction as readily as missing structure.
How to report
Group findings by severity (must-fix / should-fix / nit) with file:line and a concrete suggestion. Call out anything that breaks a load-bearing convention as must-fix. Acknowledge what's done well. If the change is clean, say so.
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 · 41 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 586ba9f90213
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository webhook-co/webhook (0 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 539 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
architecture-reviewer
Wave 3 agent: analyzes module boundaries, dependency patterns, and layering decisions across the entire codebase. Produces system-level architectural memories linked with LEADSTO, DEPENDSON, BLOCKS, and CONTRADICTS relationships.
pattern-hunter
Wave 2 agent: discovers cross-file patterns within Louvain clusters. Identifies naming conventions, shared structures, and recurring approaches. Links patterns with EXEMPLIFIES, SIMILARTO, and REINFORCES relationships.
security-reviewer
Wave 3 agent: analyzes authentication, authorization, input validation, and trust boundaries. Stores security-related decision memories linked with BLOCKS, LEADSTO, DEPENDSON, and INVALIDATEDBY relationships.
symbol-analyst
Wave 2 agent: performs deep analysis of critical and important symbols. Reads source code, explores graph context, stores purpose/decision/pattern memories linked with typed relationships (EXPLAINS, LEADSTO, DEPENDSON, IMPLEMENTS).
Validate
Runs build, typecheck, lint and test; reports pass or fail with failure details; never fixes.
code-reviewer
You are a specialized code review subagent for Visor. Your role is to perform deep, comprehensive code reviews with a focus on.