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.
npx agentmods add rules/oldjii/code-review-mcp/code-review-engit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OldJii/code-review-mcpWhat 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 | $0.00006 | $0.01662 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00831 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00332 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00166 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-en 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 2d 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 — 269 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Guidelines
Automatically select version based on user input language. Use this file for English input, use code-review.mdc for Chinese input.
Core Principles
Understand First
- Understand the overall PR/MR purpose before analyzing diff
- Deep analysis (architecture/logic/performance/security) over style checks
- Only flag "confirmed issues", not "potential issues"
- Analyze with context, not in isolation
Review Workflow
Step 1: Determine PR Type
Main repo PR -> Extract module PRs from description
Module PR -> Review directly
Step 2: Get Complete Changes
changes = get_pr_changes(provider, repo, pr_id)
for change in changes["changes"]:
full_diff = change["diff"]
analyze(full_diff)
Required: Review all files and complete diffs
Forbidden: diff[:100] or changes[:10]
Step 3: Understand PR Context (Do This First)
Before reviewing any diff, answer:
- Purpose (from title + description): New feature / Bug fix / Refactor?
- Scope (from changes): Which files added/deleted/modified?
- Architecture: Class relationships, data flow, design patterns?
- Expected Implementation: What should be implemented?
Step 4: Deep Code Analysis
4.1 Understand Diff Intent
- What role does this diff play in the overall PR?
- Does it align with the PR purpose?
4.2 Architecture Review
- Single responsibility?
- Code duplication?
- Clear abstraction layers?
- Reasonable design in overall architecture?
4.3 Logic Review (with context)
- Boundary conditions: Does caller already ensure non-null?
- Exception scenarios: Can they actually occur in business flow?
- State transitions: Complete in context of full state machine?
Avoid false positives: Caller already validated -> Skip
4.4 Performance Review (realistic scenarios)
- Data volume? Will it actually be a bottleneck?
- Loop iterations? Actually impact performance?
- Time cost? Will it actually cause lag?
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 269 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 7c7caf705418
code-review-en is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository OldJii/code-review-mcp (5 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 1,662 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
archcore-files
Enforce MCP-only operations when working with .archcore/ files.
dev_workflow
Guide for using Taskmaster to manage task-driven development workflows.
execution
Repository execution and verification commands.
cosmosmith
Cosmosmith project rules adapter.
no-crux-frontmatter
This is a regular rule file that does not have crux: true in its frontmatter. It should be ignored by the CRUX compression hook.
fix-issue
Implement a fix following the human-thinking loop — understand the root cause, plan the minimal change, implement, verify the problem is actually gone.