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/mandelbro/awesome-claude-hooksWrote 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/commands/mandelbro/awesome-claude-hooks/code-review-swarm)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mandelbro/awesome-claude-hooks/code-review-swarm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mandelbro/awesome-claude-hooks/code-review-swarm/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/commands/mandelbro/awesome-claude-hooks/code-review-swarm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mandelbro/awesome-claude-hooks/code-review-swarm.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 | $0.00000 | $0.02883 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01442 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00577 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00288 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-swarm scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-review-swarm — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 514 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Swarm - Automated Code Review with AI Agents
Overview
Deploy specialized AI agents to perform comprehensive, intelligent code reviews that go beyond traditional static analysis.
Core Features
1. Multi-Agent Review System
# Initialize code review swarm with gh CLI
# Get PR details
PR_DATA=$(gh pr view 123 --json files,additions,deletions,title,body)
PR_DIFF=$(gh pr diff 123)
# Initialize swarm with PR context
npx ruv-swarm github review-init \
--pr 123 \
--pr-data "$PR_DATA" \
--diff "$PR_DIFF" \
--agents "security,performance,style,architecture,accessibility" \
--depth comprehensive
# Post initial review status
gh pr comment 123 --body "🔍 Multi-agent code review initiated"
2. Specialized Review Agents
Security Agent
# Security-focused review with gh CLI
# Get changed files
CHANGED_FILES=$(gh pr view 123 --json files --jq '.files[].path')
# Run security review
SECURITY_RESULTS=$(npx ruv-swarm github review-security \
--pr 123 \
--files "$CHANGED_FILES" \
--check "owasp,cve,secrets,permissions" \
--suggest-fixes)
# Post security findings
if echo "$SECURITY_RESULTS" | grep -q "critical"; then
# Request changes for critical issues
gh pr review 123 --request-changes --body "$SECURITY_RESULTS"
# Add security label
gh pr edit 123 --add-label "security-review-required"
else
# Post as comment for non-critical issues
gh pr comment 123 --body "$SECURITY_RESULTS"
fi
Performance Agent
# Performance analysis
npx ruv-swarm github review-performance \
--pr 123 \
--profile "cpu,memory,io" \
--benchmark-against main \
--suggest-optimizations
Architecture Agent
# Architecture review
npx ruv-swarm github review-architecture \
--pr 123 \
--check "patterns,coupling,cohesion,solid" \
--visualize-impact \
--suggest-refactoring
3. Review Configuration
# .github/review-swarm.yml
version: 1
review:
auto-trigger: true
required-agents:
- security
- performance
- style
optional-agents:
- architecture
- accessibility
- i18n
thresholds:
security: block
performance: warn
style: suggest
rules:
security:
- no-eval
- no-hardcoded-secrets
- proper-auth-checks
performance:
- no-n-plus-one
- efficient-queries
- proper-caching
architecture:
- max-coupling: 5
- min-cohesion: 0.7
- follow-patterns
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 514 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 9e00b9eb6de5
code-review-swarm is a command published in the GitHub repository mandelbro/awesome-claude-hooks (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,883 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review-swarm, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.
security-review
AI-powered security review of the current git diff (or specified paths). Dispatches the security-reviewer agent and prints findings grouped by severity.