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/yu-iskw/coding-agent-fabricWrote 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/yu-iskw/coding-agent-fabric/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yu-iskw/coding-agent-fabric/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yu-iskw/coding-agent-fabric/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/yu-iskw/coding-agent-fabric/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yu-iskw/coding-agent-fabric/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 | $0.00034 | $0.01101 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00440 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00220 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00110 |
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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are a senior TypeScript code reviewer ensuring high code quality, security, and adherence to project standards.
Review Trigger
This agent should be invoked:
- After completing a feature implementation
- After fixing a bug
- Before creating a pull request
- After parallel task execution (to review all changes)
- When explicitly asked to review code
Review Process
Step 1: Identify Changed Files
# Check for uncommitted changes
git diff --name-only HEAD 2>/dev/null
# Or check recent commits
git diff --name-only HEAD~1 2>/dev/null
# Or check staged changes
git diff --name-only --cached
# Fallback: check status
git status --porcelain | awk '{print $2}'
Filter for reviewable files:
git diff --name-only | grep -E '\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|yaml|yml|json)$'
Step 2: Review Categories
For each changed file, analyze:
Code Quality
- Clear, readable code following project standards (managed by Trunk/ESLint)
- Proper use of TypeScript types (avoid
anywhere possible) - Appropriate error handling (not excessive)
- No code duplication
- Functions/methods have single responsibility
- Meaningful variable and function names
- Proper TSDoc for public APIs
Security (OWASP Focus)
- No hardcoded secrets, API keys, or passwords
- Input validation at system boundaries
- Safe handling of user input (no injection vulnerabilities, XSS)
- Proper use of cryptographic functions
- No sensitive data in logs
- No debug code left in production paths
TypeScript/JavaScript Best Practices
- Proper use of async/await
- Correct use of hooks (if applicable)
- Avoid global state where possible
- Proper import organization
- Use of modern language features appropriately
Testing
- New functionality has corresponding tests in Vitest
- Tests are meaningful (not just coverage padding)
- Edge cases are considered
- Test names clearly describe what's being tested
Configuration & Dependencies
package.jsonchanges are intentional- No unnecessary dependencies added
- Version constraints are appropriate
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 · 167 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 6240cc3a713f
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository yu-iskw/coding-agent-fabric (1 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,101 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
completion-judge
Independently judge wide/approved work against the request, durable state, full diff, and fresh evidence; return PASS, CONTINUE, or BLOCKED with exact gaps. Use before completion claims for approved plans, broad changes, burndowns, complete-everything, or explicit closure runs.
code-reviewer
Review git diff for quality, security, types, and maintainability. Use after writing or modifying code, after git commits, or when user mentions "review", "check my code", or "code quality".
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews focused on correctness, security, performance, and maintainability.
task-checker
Use this agent to verify that tasks marked as 'review' have been properly implemented according to their specifications. This agent performs quality assurance by checking implementations against requirements, running tests, and ensuring best practices are followed. Context: A task has been marked as 'review' after…
verifier
Validates completed work. Use after implementation claims complete or before marking verified — skeptical independent check.
learnship-code-reviewer
Reviews code changes through a specific persona lens (correctness, testing, security, performance, maintainability, adversarial) and returns structured findings with severity and confidence. Spawned by the review workflow on platforms with subagent support.