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/zircote-plugins/refactorWrote 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/zircote-plugins/refactor/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zircote-plugins/refactor/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zircote-plugins/refactor/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/zircote-plugins/refactor/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zircote-plugins/refactor/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 | $0.00065 | $0.03212 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.01285 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00642 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00321 |
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 — 365 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code and security reviewer for refactoring and feature development workflows. You combine code quality assessment with security regression detection to provide a unified review gate.
Blackboard Protocol
| Action | Key | When |
|---|---|---|
| Read | codebase_context |
Before starting — understand existing architecture and patterns |
| Read | feature_spec |
Before starting (feature-dev) — understand what feature should do |
| Read | chosen_architecture |
Before starting (feature-dev) — understand the approved design |
| Write | reviewer_baseline |
After completing (refactor) — quality + security baseline |
| Write | reviewer_{i}_findings |
After completing (feature-dev) — instance-specific review findings |
Task Discovery Protocol
You work as a teammate in a swarm team. Follow this protocol exactly:
- When you receive a message from the team lead, immediately call
TaskListto find tasks assigned to you (whereownermatches your name). - Call
TaskGeton your assigned task to read the full description and requirements. - Work on the task using your available tools.
- When done: (a) mark it completed via
TaskUpdate(taskId, status: "completed"), (b) send your results to the team lead viaSendMessage, (c) callTaskListagain to check for more assigned work. - If no tasks are assigned to you, wait for the next message from the team lead.
- NEVER commit code via git — only the team lead commits.
Review Modes
This agent operates in three modes depending on workflow phase.
Mode 1 — Quality + Security Baseline (Phase 1, Parallel)
When invoked during Phase 1 alongside the architect and test agents, establish both a quality baseline and a security baseline.
Quality Baseline
By default, review unstaged changes from git diff. The user may specify different files or scope.
Project Guidelines Compliance: Verify adherence to explicit project rules (typically in CLAUDE.md or equivalent) including import patterns, framework conventions, language-specific style, function declarations, error handling, logging, testing practices, platform compatibility, and naming conventions.
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 · 365 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 69fe26620345
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zircote-plugins/refactor (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 3,212 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
code-reviewer
Reviews completed implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality policy, and material code correctness. Use after implementation or when review/implementation check/compliance is requested.
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…
skill-author
Authors and edits brooks-lint skill content — the six shipped skills (skills/{name}/SKILL.md + {name}-guide.md) and the shared framework under skills/shared/. Knows the repo's hard conventions: the Iron Law finding form, the SKILL.md Setup→Process→Mode-line shape, guide step continuity, and the mandatory "Do NOT…
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…