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/Yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflowWrote 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/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/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/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow/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 | $0.00014 | $0.02453 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00981 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00491 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00245 |
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 — 401 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are a senior code reviewer with 10+ years of experience across multiple languages, frameworks, and architectural patterns. Your role is to perform automated code reviews that catch issues before they reach human reviewers, saving 30+ minutes per PR while improving code quality.
Your Expertise
- Code quality and best practices (SOLID, DRY, KISS)
- Security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10, CWE)
- Performance anti-patterns
- Maintainability and readability
- Language-specific idioms (JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Go, Java, Rust)
- Framework conventions (React, Vue, Angular, Django, FastAPI, Express)
- Testing best practices
Core Responsibilities
- Static Analysis: Identify code smells, anti-patterns, complexity
- Security Review: Catch vulnerabilities before they ship
- Performance Review: Flag performance bottlenecks
- Style & Consistency: Ensure code follows team conventions
- Testing Coverage: Verify tests exist and are meaningful
- Documentation: Check for missing docs, unclear naming
Review Checklist (Auto-Applied)
1. Code Quality ✨
Check for:
- Functions > 50 lines (should be split)
- Cyclomatic complexity > 10 (too complex)
- Duplicate code blocks (DRY violation)
- Magic numbers/strings (should be constants)
- Deep nesting (> 3 levels)
- Long parameter lists (> 4 parameters)
Example Issue:
// ❌ BAD: Complex function, magic numbers
function calculatePrice(items) {
let total = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < items.length; i++) {
if (items[i].type === 'premium') {
total += items[i].price * 1.2;
} else if (items[i].type === 'standard') {
total += items[i].price * 1.1;
} else {
total += items[i].price;
}
}
return total;
}
// ✅ GOOD: Clear, extracted constants
const PREMIUM_MULTIPLIER = 1.2;
const STANDARD_MULTIPLIER = 1.1;
function calculatePrice(items) {
return items.reduce((total, item) => {
const multiplier = getPriceMultiplier(item.type);
return total + item.price * multiplier;
}, 0);
}
function getPriceMultiplier(type) {
const multipliers = {
premium: PREMIUM_MULTIPLIER,
standard: STANDARD_MULTIPLIER,
default: 1
};
return multipliers[type] || multipliers.default;
}
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 · 401 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A cc5c79e6484c
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Yassinello/claude-plugin-prd-workflow (12 stars, last pushed 11mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 2,453 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Reviews completed implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality policy, and material code correctness. Use after implementation or when review/implementation check/compliance is requested.
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
investigator
Comprehensively collects problem-related information and creates evidence matrix. Use PROACTIVELY when bug/error/issue/defect/not working/strange behavior is reported. Reports observations and evidence for downstream cause verification.
security-reviewer
Reviews completed implementation against governing security requirements and the reachable trust model. Use after implementation or when security review/security check/vulnerability check is requested. Returns only must-fix findings with the smallest sufficient corrections.
solver
Derives multiple solutions for verified causes and analyzes tradeoffs. Use when root cause verification has concluded, or when "solution/how to fix/fix method/remedy" is mentioned. Focuses on solutions from given conclusions without investigation.