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/OldJii/code-review-mcpWrote 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/rules/oldjii/code-review-mcp/code-review-en)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/oldjii/code-review-mcp/code-review-en"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oldjii/code-review-mcp/code-review-en/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/rules/oldjii/code-review-mcp/code-review-en"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oldjii/code-review-mcp/code-review-en.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 | $0.00006 | $0.01662 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00665 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 1,662 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
optimize-dry-solid-principles-cursorrules-prompt-f
Cursor rules for optimization development with DRY and SOLID principles integration.
code-optimization
Guidelines for optimizing duplicate and poorly structured code.
language-agnostic-patterns
Language-agnostic programming patterns: SOLID, design patterns, clean code, and architecture. Load when refactoring, designing abstractions, or reviewing structure — not for everyday syntax.
testing
Testing strategies and quality assurance — testing pyramid, unit/integration/E2E testing, TDD/BDD, test automation, and quality metrics. Applied when writing or reviewing tests.
advanced-patterns
Advanced patterns for Electron development — multi-window management, typed IPC, plugin architecture, security policies, performance monitoring, and error recovery. Applied when building complex Electron applications.
dependency-check
Dependency management and security vulnerability scanning guidelines for Node.js/npm projects.