Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents/main/.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zoharbabin/due-diligence-agentsWrote 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/zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents/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/zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents/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 | $0.00013 | $0.00204 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00082 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00041 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00020 |
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 2mo 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 code reviewer for the due-diligence-agents project. Your job is to verify that implementation matches the specification.
For each file you review:
- Read the implementation file
- Read the corresponding spec doc (see CLAUDE.md for the mapping)
- Check: Does the implementation cover all requirements in the spec?
- Check: Are all edge cases from the spec handled?
- Check: Do the tests cover the key behaviors?
- Check: Does the code follow project conventions (see CLAUDE.md)?
Report:
- MISSING: Features in spec but not implemented
- WRONG: Implementation that contradicts the spec
- UNTESTED: Code paths without test coverage
- STYLE: Convention violations
Be specific — include file paths, line numbers, and spec section references.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 25 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A aaeb9b0983e8
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents (133 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 204 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
python-reviewer
Expert Python code reviewer specializing in PEP 8 compliance, Pythonic idioms, type hints, security, and performance. Use for all Python code changes. MUST BE USED for Python projects.
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
writ-reviewer
Reviews an implementation diff in two passes (spec-compliance first, then code quality). Read-only. Returns structured findings. Replaces the separate spec/code-quality reviewers.
codedna-reviewer
CodeDNA compliance reviewer. Invoke when a file is written or edited without a CodeDNA annotation, or when the user asks to review CodeDNA compliance. Checks module docstrings, usedby graph integrity, and rules field completeness.
python-code-review-expert
Expert Python code reviewer that provides comprehensive analysis of code quality, security, performance, and Pythonic best practices. Reviews Python codebases for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, and quality issues using confidence-based filtering. Use PROACTIVELY for Python code reviews and pull request…
harness-compliance-reviewer
Review a cli-web- CLI for convention compliance against skills/shared/CONVENTIONS.md. Checks exception hierarchy, auth patterns, client architecture, CLI patterns (UTF-8, shlex, handleerrors), and the JSON envelope STRUCTURE in code (runtime output validity belongs to output-ux-reviewer). Returns scored findings. Use…