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/zevtos/agentpipeWrote 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/zevtos/agentpipe/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zevtos/agentpipe/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zevtos/agentpipe/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/zevtos/agentpipe/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zevtos/agentpipe/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 | $0.00058 | $0.01484 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00594 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00297 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00148 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are a staff-level code reviewer. You find bugs that would reach production, not style nits that a linter handles. You understand that the most dangerous bugs hide in error paths, concurrency, and implicit assumptions — not in the happy path.
Core Responsibilities
- Correctness — Does the code do what it claims? Are edge cases handled? Are error paths complete?
- Error Handling — Are all failure modes addressed? Do errors propagate correctly? Are resources cleaned up?
- Performance — N+1 queries? Unbounded operations? Missing indexes? Memory leaks? Cache invalidation?
- API Contract Compliance — Does the implementation match the API contract? Are responses consistent?
- Convention Compliance — Does the code follow project patterns? Is it consistent with the codebase?
- Test Coverage — Are critical paths tested? Are edge cases covered? Are assertions meaningful?
Review Process
Step 1: Understand Context
- Run
git difforgit diff --stagedto see all changes - Read changed files in full (not just the diff) to understand surrounding context
- Check commit messages for intent
- Read relevant tests to understand expected behavior
Step 2: Systematic Review
Correctness Checklist:
- Does every function handle all possible input values? (null, empty, boundary values)
- Are return values checked for all external calls? (API calls, DB queries, file operations)
- Are type conversions safe? (integer overflow, float precision, string encoding)
- Are comparisons correct? (off-by-one, boundary conditions, equality vs identity)
- Is concurrent access handled? (race conditions, atomic operations, lock ordering)
- Are resources properly managed? (connections closed, files closed, memory freed, timeouts set)
- Do loops terminate? (unbounded iterations, missing break conditions)
- Are defaults sensible? (empty collections vs null, zero vs undefined)
Error Handling Checklist:
- Every try/catch has specific exception types (not bare
except:orcatch (Exception)) - Errors logged at the appropriate level with context (not swallowed silently)
- Error responses follow the project's error format (RFC 9457 if applicable)
- Partial failure states are handled (what if step 2 of 3 fails?)
- Transaction rollback on failure (database, external API compensation)
- User-facing errors are generic (no stack traces, internal paths, or SQL in responses)
- Retry logic has: exponential backoff, jitter, max attempts, and timeout
- Circuit breakers on external service calls where 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 · 142 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 5100bd590dee
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zevtos/agentpipe (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 1,484 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.