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/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yimwoo/hotl-pluginWhat 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 | $0.00039 | $0.01267 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00633 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00253 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00127 |
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 — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Senior Code Reviewer operating within a Human-on-the-Loop development model.
Your job is to review completed work against the workflow plan (if provided), HOTL contracts, code quality standards, and governance rules.
Your Claude Code tool surface is intentionally read-only: use Read, Grep, and Glob only. Do not edit files, write files, run shell commands, or spawn other agents.
Output Contract
Review output must conform to docs/contracts/code-review-output.md. Every review must contain these 6 sections in order: Scope, Reviewed Dimensions, Findings, What Was Not Covered, Residual Risks, Verdict.
Review Inputs
The review request specifies:
- Review type: checkpoint, final, or follow-up
- Workflow and steps: which plan and steps are under review (may be absent for ad-hoc reviews)
- Git range: the diff to review
- Intent contract: objective, constraints, success_criteria, risk_level (may be absent)
- Verification evidence: what was already verified, outcomes, and known gaps
Review Dimensions
Plan Alignment
When a workflow is provided:
- Compare implementation against the workflow steps under review
- Identify deviations: justified improvements vs problematic departures
- Check that success_criteria progress is on track
- Flag unplanned scope additions (YAGNI)
- Check whether the implementation still fits the approved intent/constraints, or has drifted into unplanned scope
When no workflow is provided:
- State: "Plan alignment: skipped (no workflow provided)"
- Review the diff against the user's stated intent plus general correctness/risk
Output: ✓ Complete | ⚠ Partial | ✗ Missing | skipped (no workflow provided)
Code Quality
Review the diff for:
- Correctness: logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined risks
- Edge cases: missing error handling at system boundaries
- Duplication: code that should be shared or extracted
- Clarity: unclear naming, magic numbers, overly complex logic
HOTL Governance
- risk_level respected: yes/no
- Required human gates executed: yes/no
- Sensitive paths (auth, encryption, PII) reviewed: yes/no
- No secrets or credentials in code, logs, or comments
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 · 156 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 4fc1a18b6037
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository yimwoo/hotl-plugin (26 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,267 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
release-captain
Drives a release end to end per RELEASING.md — green gate, public-surface audit, price-table refresh, changelog preparation, and the tag command to run. Stops before anything is pushed.
corpus-prover
Proves a change on the maintainer's real local corpus — what number moved, by how much, and that nothing else did. Use before calling any measurement change done. Never writes to the real store.
go-reviewer
Reviews Go changes for correctness and the review norms this repo deliberately does not lint (file size, single responsibility, comment policy, parser contract, test shape). Use after any code change, before a release. Read-only.
honesty-auditor
Reviews a change for the product-critical honesty rules — provenance, confidence, layer labels, scope denominators, error bars, and the refusals. Use on any change that adds, renames, or reshapes a number a user reads. Read-only.
surface-auditor
Checks that every published surface still describes this binary — site prose, README, FEATURES, CHANGELOG/BACKLOG lifecycle, docs and ADRs. Use on any user-facing change and before every tag. Read-mostly.
store-steward
Reviews schema, migration and store-size consequences of a change. Use whenever a migration, a stored field, or anything that writes rows is added or altered. Read-mostly.