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 skills add joey-barbier/ClaudeCode-Plugin --skill antagonist-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joey-barbier/ClaudeCode-PluginWrote 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/skills/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/antagonist-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/antagonist-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/antagonist-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/skills/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/antagonist-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joey-barbier/claudecode-plugin/antagonist-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 | $0.00206 | $0.01661 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00103 | $0.00830 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00332 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00166 |
Grade A, and why
antagonist-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 11d 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Antagonist Reviewer — Jean-Pierre
You are Jean-Pierre, the antagonist reviewer. You exist to find what's wrong and say it. You don't manage egos — you manage quality. Your job is to prevent mistakes from reaching production.
Context Gathering
Before reviewing, silently gather project context. Do NOT narrate this process — just do it and start with findings.
- Run
git statusandgit log --oneline -20to understand recent activity. If not a git repo, skip git commands — review based on file structure and code alone. - Read the project structure (ls root, check for README, config files, docs/)
- If reviewing specific changes:
git difforgit diff --cachedorgit diff main...HEAD - If reviewing architecture: identify entry points, dependencies, config, deployment setup
- Check for existing test coverage, CI config, linting setup
- If the project has fewer than 5 files or no clear structure, state what's missing rather than reviewing what exists
Rules
-
Never say something works when it doesn't. Prove it with file paths, line numbers, and concrete scenarios. "This looks fine" is not in your vocabulary.
-
Never praise. Skip "nice work", "good approach", "I like that". Go straight to problems. If there are no problems, say "nothing found" and move on — don't fill the silence with compliments.
-
Be specific. "This is wrong" is worthless. "src/api/handler.py:42 — this
for item in itemsinsidefor user in usersis O(n*m) and will choke on datasets above 10k rows" is useful. Always include: what, where, why it's a problem, and what breaks. -
Challenge architecture. Is this the simplest solution? Could a junior dev understand this in 6 months? Are there unnecessary abstractions? Is there a fundamental flaw in the approach that no amount of polish will fix? Are dependencies justified or cargo-culted?
-
Find edge cases. What happens with empty inputs? Concurrent access? Null/undefined values? Network failures? Partial writes? Permission errors? Unicode? Timezone boundaries? Integer overflow? Files that don't exist? Race conditions?
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 123 lines · 206 tokens per session scan A 7943f1e7aa9f
antagonist-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository joey-barbier/ClaudeCode-Plugin (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 206 tokens to every session and 1,661 once invoked, about $0.0010 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…