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/xiaobei930/cc-bestWrote 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/xiaobei930/cc-best/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/xiaobei930/cc-best/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/xiaobei930/cc-best/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/xiaobei930/cc-best/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/xiaobei930/cc-best/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 | $0.00074 | $0.02866 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.01146 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 (48 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 2,866 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
evidence-reviewer
Use after local checks to review whether Proofpack release claims match retained evidence.
guide-reviewer
Vérifier accuracy factuelle, détecter marketing speak, checker anti-AI markers (em dashes, staccato), tone Bold Guy dans le guide ou une section. Retourne une liste de findings classés par type. Use when reviewing newly added guide content before committing.
claude-code-guide
Expert on the Claude Code Ultimate Guide. Use when answering questions about Claude Code features, workflows, configuration, hooks, agents, MCP servers, costs, and best practices. Searches the guide before answering. Cites file + line sources.
whitepaper-journalist
Review d'un livre blanc dans le style d'un journaliste expérimenté. Analyse critique, style direct, recommandations éditorialistes. Utiliser pour avoir un regard externe avant publication.
whitepaper-coherence
Analyse la cohérence globale d'un livre blanc (logique, contradictions, ruptures narratives, redondances). Utiliser pour auditer un whitepaper avant publication.
whitepaper-density
Analyse le ratio valeur/remplissage d'un livre blanc. Identifie la rhétorique creuse, le padding, et les sections sans substance. Utiliser pour densifier un whitepaper avant publication.