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/yimwoo/hotl-pluginWrote 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/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/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/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/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 | $0.00039 | $0.01267 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00507 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 (27 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,267 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
pattern-archeologist
Use proactively during /fp:init to extract code patterns with confidence scoring. Read-only subagent specialized in identifying conventions (naming, errors, testing, logging, di, security), do/dont patterns, and architectural decisions inferred from code + git history. Each pattern returned with concrete code example…
reconciliation-auditor
Use proactively during /fp:init and /fp:check to perform Spec-Code Reconciliation. Read-only subagent that matches intent artifacts (docs, specs, JIRA, GitHub issues, README sections) against code implementation. Returns feature × status × evidence matrix. NEVER modifies files.
matcha-auditor
Stack audit. Finds overlaps, waste, security risks. Read-only.
matcha-reviewer
Review gate with risk-based routing. L0=output check, L1=lint, L2=full review, L3=expert+threat model. Blocks merge if critical issues found. Read-only.
matcha-finder
Reuse decision engine. Finds existing code before writing new — classifies REUSE/EXTEND/COMPOSE/REFERENCE/NEW. Never duplicate. Read-only.
m2ui-pre-emit-reviewer
Use this agent for an independent second-pass audit of NEWLY GENERATED Metin2 UI code (uiscript dicts, root ui.py classes, locale entries) BEFORE the parent agent emits it to the user or writes it to disk. The reviewer cites file:line for every finding and proposes NO fixes — it surfaces issues for the parent agent to…