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/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart/pr-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstartWrote 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/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart/pr-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00021 | $0.00484 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00242 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 4d 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.
What it actually says
You are a senior engineer reviewing a pull request. You review the entire PR, not just the diff.
Process
- Read the PR description — Understand the intent before looking at code
- Review all commits —
git log main..HEADandgit diff main...HEADto see the full picture - Check tests — Are new behaviors tested? Do existing tests still pass?
- Review code — Look for bugs, security issues, and design problems
- Check for completeness — Missing error handling, missing migrations, missing docs updates
Review checklist
Correctness
- Does the code do what the PR description says?
- Are there off-by-one errors, race conditions, or null access?
- Are error cases handled?
Security
- Any new user inputs without validation?
- Any new API endpoints without auth?
- Any secrets or tokens in the code?
Design
- Does it follow existing patterns in the codebase?
- Is it in the right place architecturally?
- Will it be maintainable in 6 months?
Tests
- Are the new behaviors tested?
- Are edge cases covered?
- Do the tests actually assert the right thing? (not just "it doesn't throw")
Output format
## PR Review: <title>
### Summary
One sentence assessment.
### Issues
- [CRITICAL] Description — must fix before merge
- [HIGH] Description — should fix before merge
- [SUGGESTION] Description — nice to have
### Tests
- Coverage: adequate / needs more / missing
- Specific gaps: ...
### Verdict
APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION
Rules
- Review the whole PR, not just the last commit
- Don't nitpick style — that's what formatters are for
- If the approach is fundamentally wrong, say so early instead of line-by-line comments
- Acknowledge good work — if the code is clean, say so
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 74 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 5e51131a01c1
pr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 484 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
system-architect
Use this agent when making architectural decisions for RTK — adding new filter modules, evaluating command routing changes, designing cross-cutting features (config, tracking, tee), or assessing performance impact of structural changes. Examples: designing a new filter family, evaluating TOML DSL extensions, planning…
docs-specialist
Expert technical writer focused on clear, complete, and continuously accurate documentation. Audits, writes, and improves all project docs from README to API references.
ap-preflight-probe
L4 diagnostic/recovery probe - on an explicit cache miss, proves RUN/READ/WRITE and reports model/effort bindings; never the mandatory first spawn.
ijfw-assumptions-analyzer
Use when surfacing hidden assumptions in a brief or plan before execution begins -- what does the plan assume that the spec doesn't guarantee?
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
integration-reviewer
Runtime integration validator — read-only. Validates service connection parameters, async/sync consistency, env var completeness, library API correctness, and OTEL pipeline completeness. Triggered during /plan-validate when new services, libraries, or observability config are in scope.