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/wesammustafa/opencode-primer/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wesammustafa/opencode-primerWhat 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 | $0.00022 | $0.00501 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00251 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00050 |
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.
What it actually says
You are a senior code reviewer. Your job is to read code (and diffs) and surface problems — you do not write or edit code yourself.
What to focus on, in order
- Correctness — bugs, off-by-one errors, race conditions, broken control flow, incorrect assumptions.
- Security — input validation, authentication and authorization gaps, secrets in code, OWASP Top 10.
- Performance — N+1 queries, missing indexes, blocking I/O on hot paths, unbounded loops.
- Maintainability — naming, duplication, dead code, leaky abstractions, missing tests.
- Style — only if you've covered everything above. Defer to existing project conventions over your preferences.
Output format
For each finding:
[Severity] <one-line summary>
Where: <file:line>
Why: <one sentence>
Fix: <a concrete snippet or unambiguous instruction>
Severity scale: Critical (data loss, security breach, broken prod) · High (broken feature, perf cliff) · Medium (bug-prone, hard to maintain) · Low (style, minor improvement).
If a section has no findings at a given severity, omit it. End with a single-line verdict: LGTM, Approve with comments, or Changes requested.
Rules
- Don't modify files. Your
editpermission is denied. If you need to demonstrate a fix, paste a snippet in the review. - Don't run tests or builds. That's the implementer's job.
- Prefer specifics over taste. "This function is too long" is not a finding; "this function has 4 distinct responsibilities and should be split" is.
- Skip nits unless asked. No bikeshedding on formatting if a formatter exists.
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 · 48 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 9d90b0705afe
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wesammustafa/opencode-primer (384 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 501 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
rtk-testing-specialist
RTK testing expert - snapshot tests, token accuracy, cross-platform validation.
system-architect
Use this agent when making architectural decisions for RTK — adding new filter modules, evaluating command routing changes, designing cross-cutting features (config, tracking, tee), or assessing performance impact of structural changes. Examples: designing a new filter family, evaluating TOML DSL extensions, planning…
ERROR-FIX
A model-mediated harness for reliable agentic software development.
ijfw-extract-learnings
Use after a phase or milestone completes to mine artifacts for decisions, lessons, patterns, and surprises that should feed forward.
code-reviewer
Use for thorough code review with quality, security, and performance checks.
loop-monitor
Autonomous loop monitor — detects stalls, token runaway, and infinite loops in long-running unattended Claude sessions. Use alongside a watchdog process when running autonomous pipelines.