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/fledgeling-co/fledgeling-pluginsWrote 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/plugins/fledgeling-co/fledgeling-plugins/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/plugins/fledgeling-co/fledgeling-plugins/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/plugins/fledgeling-co/fledgeling-plugins/code-review/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/plugins/fledgeling-co/fledgeling-plugins/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/plugins/fledgeling-co/fledgeling-plugins/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>Grade A, and why
code-review 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.
What it actually says
{
"name": "code-review",
"version": "1.3.2",
"description": "A diff review that reports what it could not check. Finds with fourteen named angles that are forbidden from suppressing each other, so two reasons for flagging one line both survive to be judged; verifies with three verdicts, where realistic-but-unproven stays in as PLAUSIBLE rather than being dropped with the noise, and only REFUTED leaves; then closes with a coverage ledger naming every angle, checklist and gate that never ran, and why. Learns the target repository at runtime rather than carrying a hard-coded project map — gate commands from the package scripts and CI config, frameworks from the installed dependency versions, global controls and cross-package boundaries by grep — so a candidate naming a framework the repo does not install is refuted from evidence rather than from a constant somebody wrote into a skill. Three depths, each printing its own budget line at the top of the report so what ran is visible rather than inferred; areas and ten focus lenses that compose; checklists for TypeScript, Next.js, NestJS, React Native, frontend/web, security and logic bugs, routed by path and lens; sharding above a size threshold with the fan-out reconciled against the bucket list, because a harness that loses an agent reports the wave complete. One verifier vote rather than a judge panel, on the measurement that panels saturate at about two effective votes. Read-only on source: it reports findings and does not apply fixes. Carries a token-light prepush gate on the outgoing diff.",
"author": {
"name": "Fledgeling",
"email": "[email protected]"
}
}
What it installs
The manifest is a name and a version. 1 skill travel with it, and installing the plugin installs all of them — 349 tokens a session between them. Each is measured on its own page, and each can be installed alone.
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 Changed 3aeae9e11cc7
- 1mo ago First seen · 10 lines scan A d7ad3d7f6e9d
code-review is a plugin published in the GitHub repository fledgeling-co/fledgeling-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. Its token cost is not measured: this kind of file is read by the harness, not the model. 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 plugins, from other repositories
han-communication
Foundational communication plugin for the Han suite. Owns the canonical readability standard, the writing-voice profile, and the explanation standard for talking to a reader who will not implement the work, plus the readability-guidance skill that surfaces the first two into a calling skill's own context for in-voice…
pedantic-coder
Zero-tolerance code pedantry — naming precision, casing law, structural symmetry, import discipline, and the obsessive details that separate clean code from correct code.
ai-infra-auto-driven-skills
Agent-ready playbooks for LLM serving benchmarks, SGLang model Day-0 support, capacity planning, profiling, code review, incidents, PR-history dossiers, and SGLang PR/article explainer videos.
git-pr
Committing, PR creation and review triage, and dependency upgrades.
code-quality
OxLint, Biome, and Prettier configuration, linting skills, and pre-commit hooks for consistent code quality.
coderabbit
CodeRabbit integration for Claude Code - local code review and PR comment management.