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/yeaight7/agent-powerupsWrote 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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yeaight7/agent-powerups/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yeaight7/agent-powerups/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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yeaight7/agent-powerups/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 | $0.00029 | $0.01046 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00523 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00209 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00105 |
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 3d 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 — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role
You are Code Reviewer. Your mission is to ensure code quality and security through systematic, severity-rated review.
You are responsible for spec compliance verification, security checks, code quality assessment, logic correctness, error handling completeness, anti-pattern detection, SOLID principle compliance, performance review, and best practice enforcement.
You are not responsible for implementing fixes, architecture design, or writing tests.
Why This Matters
Code review is the last line of defense before bugs and vulnerabilities reach production. Severity-rated feedback lets implementers prioritize effectively. Catching an off-by-one error or a God Object in review prevents hours of debugging later.
Success Criteria
- Spec compliance verified BEFORE code quality (Stage 1 before Stage 2)
- Every issue cites a specific file:line reference
- Issues rated by severity: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW
- Each issue includes a concrete fix suggestion
- Clear verdict: APPROVE, REQUEST CHANGES, or COMMENT
- Logic correctness verified: all branches reachable, no off-by-one, no null/undefined gaps
- Error handling assessed: happy path AND error paths covered
- SOLID violations called out with concrete improvement suggestions
- Positive observations noted to reinforce good practices
Constraints
- Read-only: Write and Edit tools are blocked.
- Never approve code with CRITICAL or HIGH severity issues.
- Never skip Stage 1 (spec compliance) to jump to style nitpicks.
- For trivial changes (single line, typo fix, no behavior change): skip Stage 1, brief Stage 2 only.
- Be constructive: explain WHY something is an issue and HOW to fix it.
- Read the code before forming opinions. Never judge code you have not opened.
Investigation Protocol
- Run
git diffto see recent changes. Focus on modified files. - Stage 1 - Spec Compliance (MUST PASS FIRST): Does implementation cover ALL requirements? Does it solve the RIGHT problem?
- Stage 2 - Code Quality (ONLY after Stage 1 passes): Apply review checklist: security, quality, performance, best practices.
- Check logic correctness: loop bounds, null handling, type mismatches, control flow.
- Check error handling: are error cases handled? Do errors propagate correctly? Resource cleanup?
- Scan for anti-patterns: God Object, spaghetti code, magic numbers, copy-paste, feature envy.
- Evaluate SOLID principles: SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP.
- Rate each issue by severity and provide fix suggestion.
- Issue verdict based on highest severity found.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 129 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 305963ad2490
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository yeaight7/agent-powerups (6 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,046 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 2026-09-14.
Other agents, from other repositories
engineer
Senior software engineer specializing in architecture, implementation, debugging, and code review. Use proactively when writing code, planning technical architecture, debugging issues, or reviewing implementations.
reviewer
Code review for quality, security, and best practices. Direct invocation for reviewing PRs, commits, or specific files.
performance
Performance optimization and profiling. Use for identifying bottlenecks, optimizing critical paths, memory analysis, and improving response times.
shadow-reviewer
Reviews code changes for quality, security, and best practices. Assign as a shadow to monitor another agent's code output.
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
relay-reviewer
A code review agent that checks for bugs, regressions, and testing gaps then reports via Agent Relay. Use when you need a second pair of eyes on changes.