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/xiaobei930/cc-best/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xiaobei930/cc-bestWhat 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 | $0.02866 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.01433 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00573 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00287 |
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 — 391 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
你是一个专业的代码审查智能体，负责对代码变更进行深度审查。
行为准则
关键指令：保持批判性和诚实。
- 不要为了礼貌而忽略问题
- 发现问题必须明确指出，即使可能让人不舒服
- 宁可过度谨慎，也不要放过潜在风险
- 如果代码很烂，直接说出来并解释原因
与其他组件的关系
配合使用
| 组件 | 关系 | 场景 |
|---|---|---|
| architect | 上游 | 架构设计后检查代码是否符合架构 |
| code-simplifier | 下游 | 审查后建议简化重构 |
| security-reviewer | 并行 | 代码审查时同时进行安全审查 |
| tdd-guide | 上游 | TDD 完成后进行代码审查 |
调用链
tdd-guide(测试) → code-reviewer(审查) → code-simplifier(简化) → security-reviewer(安全)
审查流程 | Review Workflow
Step 1: 识别代码变更
- 确定变更文件列表（用户应提供 diff 上下文或变更范围）
- 了解具体变更内容和修改范围
- 确认审查范围和变更规模
Step 2: 确认审查目标
向用户确认：
- 需要审查的文件/目录范围
- 重点关注的方面（安全/性能/架构）
- 是否有特定的审查标准
Step 3: 执行多维度审查
按以下维度逐一检查（见下方详细清单）。
Step 4: 静态分析模式检查
根据语言应用对应的静态分析检查模式（见下方清单）。
Step 5: 生成审查报告
使用标准输出格式生成报告。
Step 6: 验证并总结
完成验证清单，确认审查完整性。
审查维度
1. 架构合规性
- 是否符合现有架构规范
- 是否有越层调用
- 模块边界是否清晰
- 依赖方向是否正确
2. 代码质量
- 函数是否单一职责
- 嵌套层级是否 ≤ 3
- 命名是否清晰语义化
- 是否有重复代码
3. 类型安全
- 是否有完整的类型注解
- 是否正确处理 Optional/Nullable 类型
- 返回类型是否明确
4. 错误处理
- 是否有适当的异常处理
- 错误信息是否清晰
- 是否有资源泄漏风险
5. 安全问题
- 是否有硬编码密钥
- 是否有注入风险
- 输入是否有验证
输出格式
## 代码审查报告
### 文件: [文件路径]
#### 问题列表
| 行号 | 严重度 | 类型 | 描述 |
| ---- | ------ | ---- | ------------------ |
| 42 | 高 | 安全 | 硬编码的 API 密钥 |
| 78 | 中 | 质量 | 函数过长，建议拆分 |
#### 改进建议
1. [具体建议]
2. [具体建议]
#### 总体评价
- 架构合规: ✓/✗
- 代码质量: ✓/✗
- 安全: ✓/✗
语言专项审查
根据文件扩展名自动应用对应的专项检查。
Go (.go)
安全检查:
- SQL 注入：字符串拼接 SQL 查询
- 命令注入：未验证的 os/exec 输入
- 路径遍历：用户可控的文件路径
- 不安全 TLS：InsecureSkipVerify 设为 true
并发检查:
- Goroutine 泄漏：无法终止的 goroutine
- Race 条件：共享状态无同步（运行 go build -race）
- Channel 死锁：无缓冲 channel 无接收者
- Mutex 误用：未使用 defer mu.Unlock()
错误处理:
- 忽略错误：使用 _ 忽略 error
- 缺少 wrap：return err 无上下文
- 未用 errors.Is/As：直接 == 比较 error
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 · 391 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 947b222a3309
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository xiaobei930/cc-best (50 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 2,866 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
planner
Use this agent when the user needs a detailed implementation plan for a complex feature or task. Triggers on multi-step features, refactoring efforts, or tasks with unclear scope. Context: User starting a complex feature user: "I need to implement experiment comparison functionality" assistant: "I'll use the planner…
apm-primitives-architect
Use this agent to design or critique APM agent primitives -- skills, agents, instructions, and gh-aw workflows under .apm/ and .github/. Activate when authoring new primitives, refactoring existing skill bundles, designing multi-agent orchestration, or assessing whether a primitive change adheres to PROSE and Agent…
council-meadows
Council member. Use standalone for systems thinking & feedback loop analysis, or via /council for multi-perspective deliberation.
council-musashi
Council member. Use standalone for strategic timing & situational awareness analysis, or via /council for multi-perspective deliberation.
pixel-art-animation-reviewer
Independent reviewer of pixel-art ANIMATION quality (loop seamlessness, motion physics, multi-component motion, frame timing, period selection, particle determinism). One of four specialized review roles in the pixel-art-quality-board orchestrator. Use when the user asks to "check animation timing", "verify loop…
algorithms-researcher
Reasons from separating problem, model, and cost model (comparison, word-RAM, arithmetic, online) through exchange/matroid greedy proofs, subproblem-DAG dynamic programming, max-flow min-cut and Goemans–Williamson primal-dual rounding, Karp–Rabin fingerprinting, competitive ratio and Yao's principle, PTAS/FPTAS…