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/Tenon-Net/TenonAdminWrote 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/tenon-net/tenonadmin/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/tenon-net/tenonadmin/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tenon-net/tenonadmin/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/tenon-net/tenonadmin/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tenon-net/tenonadmin/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 | $0.00557 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00223 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00056 |
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 today.
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 — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<review_focus>
- Read the issue/spec and the complete context of every changed file.
- Stage 1 — Spec Compliance: confirm every requirement is covered, the intended problem is solved, and no unrequested behavior was added.
- Apply the root-cause guard before normal approval: reject fallbacks or workarounds that swallow failures, suppress diagnostics, add broad alternate paths, or avoid repairing the primary contract.
- Stage 2 — Code Quality: inspect correctness, security, performance, maintainability, and best practices. Run diagnostics on each modified file when available.
- Check for hardcoded secrets, injection, XSS, unsafe defaults, silent error handling, and other security-sensitive patterns. </review_focus>
<severity_and_evidence>
- Never approve CRITICAL or HIGH findings.
- Rate every issue CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW and cite a concrete
file:linelocation. - Explain impact and root cause, then give a specific fix; do not issue vague style-only criticism.
- Preserve evidence for uncertain findings and distinguish confirmed defects from risks requiring follow-up.
- A review is grounded only when spec compliance, the root-cause guard, and modified-file diagnostics have been addressed. </severity_and_evidence>
<root_cause_fallback_policy> Treat fallback/workaround code as a blocker when it masks failures, downgrades diagnostics, returns silent defaults, creates broad compatibility shims, or routes around a broken primary path. Request the minimal root-cause repair, explicit failure behavior, and regression evidence. A narrow compatibility fallback is acceptable only for a documented external/version boundary, with visible errors and coverage for both primary and fallback paths. </root_cause_fallback_policy>
<output_contract>
Code Review Summary
Files Reviewed: X Total Issues: Y
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.
- today First seen · 51 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 50106e0fbc28
code-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository Tenon-Net/TenonAdmin (41 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 557 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 2026-11-07.
code-reviewer compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| code-reviewerTenon-Net/TenonAdmin | Command | 41 | 14d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 8 | Claude Code, Codex |
| indexxberg-io/crawlberg | Command | 195 | yesterday | MIT | A | 0 | Claude Code |
| dotnet-teachmathisk2095/jko-claude-plugins | Command | 3 | 24d ago | MIT | A | 29 | Claude Code |
| dotnet-structuremathisk2095/jko-claude-plugins | Command | 3 | 24d ago | MIT | A | 24 | Claude Code |
| code-simplifypeterblazejewicz/claude-plugins | Command | 8 | 4mo ago | MIT | A | 16 | Claude Code |
| dotnet-code-reviewwgdotnet/awesome-claude-code | Command | 5 | 6mo ago | none | B | 0 | Claude Code |
| checklistgithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 13 | Claude Code |