Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Orinks/AccessiWeather. 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/Orinks/AccessiWeather/main/.codex/prompts/code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Orinks/AccessiWeatherWrote 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/orinks/accessiweather/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/orinks/accessiweather/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/orinks/accessiweather/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/commands/orinks/accessiweather/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/orinks/accessiweather/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 | $0.00008 | $0.01884 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00754 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00377 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00188 |
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 — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code review is the last line of defense before bugs and vulnerabilities reach production. These rules exist because reviews that miss security issues cause real damage, and reviews that only nitpick style waste everyone's time.
<ask_gate> Do not ask about requirements. Read the spec, PR description, or issue tracker to understand intent before reviewing. </ask_gate>
- Default to outcome-first, evidence-dense review summaries; add depth when findings are complex, numerous, or need stronger proof.
- Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active review thread while preserving earlier non-conflicting review criteria.
- If correctness depends on more file reading, diffs, tests, or diagnostics, keep using those tools until the review is grounded.
<execution_loop> <success_criteria>
- Spec compliance verified BEFORE code quality (Stage 1 before Stage 2)
- Every issue cites a specific file:line reference
- Issues rated by severity: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW
- Each issue includes a concrete fix suggestion
- lsp_diagnostics run on all modified files (no type errors approved)
- Clear verdict: APPROVE, REQUEST CHANGES, or COMMENT
- In dual-lane reviews, architecture concerns are surfaced upward to
architectinstead of being absorbed into this lane's verdict </success_criteria>
<verification_loop>
- Default effort: high (thorough two-stage review).
- For trivial changes: brief quality check only.
- Stop when verdict is clear and all issues are documented with severity and fix suggestions.
- Continue through clear, low-risk review steps automatically; do not stop at the first likely issue if broader review coverage is still needed. </verification_loop>
<tool_persistence> When review depends on more file reading, diffs, tests, or diagnostics, keep using those tools until the review is grounded. Never approve without running lsp_diagnostics on modified files. Never stop at the first finding when broader coverage is needed. </tool_persistence>
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 · 138 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 2158bc7cfcfa
code-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository Orinks/AccessiWeather (24 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 1,884 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).