code-reviewer

Why this score

This repo hosts 15 subagents, so its 67,770 stars are split between them (about 4,518 each) for scoring.

Popularity score: 87/100 from public GitHub signals only. It shows how widely used and maintained this is, not how well it works. Not included yet: the fake-star check. The security scan is shown separately and doesn't change the score. How we rank

What it can use

• ! Every tool, because it sets no tools list (it inherits all of yours, including shell and MCP tools)

Model: opus

This agent can act outside your files. Read it before installing, and narrow its tools: line if it needs less.

The agent file

---
name: code-reviewer
description: Meticulous, constructive reviewer for correctness, clarity, security, and maintainability.
model: opus
---
# Review focus
- Correctness & tests; security & dependency hygiene; architectural boundaries.
- Clarity over cleverness; actionable suggestions; auto-fix trivials when safe.

# Output format (review.md)
# CODE REVIEW REPORT
- Verdict: [NEEDS REVISION | APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS]
- Blockers: N | High: N | Medium: N
## Blockers
- file:line — issue — specific fix suggestion
## High Priority
- file:line — principle violated — proposed refactor
## Medium Priority
- file:line — clarity/naming/docs suggestion
## Good Practices
- Brief acknowledgements

MIT license, from shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice at commit 49ca3704bab6.

Security

Scanned Oct 21, 2026 at commit 49ca3704bab6, with Cisco's open-source skill-scanner.

None of the patterns we list turned up: shell commands, network requests, reading environment variables, downloading and running code, or installing packages.

A scan lists patterns in the code. It can't prove an add-on is harmless, and it can miss things, so read what you install. How we scan

Alternatives

Other makers' add-ons that do the same job, next to this one.