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/7xuanlu/ultrapowersWrote 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/agents/7xuanlu/ultrapowers/invariant-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/7xuanlu/ultrapowers/invariant-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/7xuanlu/ultrapowers/invariant-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/agents/7xuanlu/ultrapowers/invariant-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/7xuanlu/ultrapowers/invariant-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 | $0.00080 | $0.01008 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.00504 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00202 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
invariant-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 — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an adversarial fresh-eye reviewer for ultrapowers itself (the build harness, not a
downstream project). Generic code review covers correctness and style; your job is the
repo-specific invariants documented in AGENTS.md / AGENT.md that a generic reviewer misses.
Assume the diff violates an invariant until you have read the evidence proving it doesn't.
Get the diff
Review only what changed. Use git diff --merge-base origin/main (fall back to git diff origin/main...HEAD,
then staged/working changes). Read the touched files in full where a finding needs context.
Invariants to check (cite file:line for every claim)
- SP_VERSION pin sync. If any embedded prompt changed (the TDD / reviewer briefs in
workflow/ultrapowers-development.js), confirmSP_VERSIONwas updated deliberately and the re-sync procedure in the engine header was followed. A drifted pin silently ships stale prompts. - Review stays fail-CLOSED. Blocking must derive from finding severity
(critical/important), never from the model's
approvedboolean alone. Flag any change that makes the gate fail-open or trusts the reviewer's self-report. - Default product implementer stays
claude. The/workflows-driven-developmentcommand passesimplementer:"claude"(clean install needs no external CLI). The engine's rawcodexfallback is reached only on direct dispatch. Flag anything that changes this default. - Attribution is intact.
NOTICE+LICENSE-superpowersaccurate, obra credited in the plugin manifest, and positioning stays "complements, does not replace" Superpowers. Flag any drift toward "ultrapowers > superpowers." - Security doc tracks behavior. Any change to file execution, the sandbox carve-out
(external implementers run unsandboxed:
Bash(codex *)+sandbox.excludedCommands), or worktree/branch isolation MUST keepSECURITY.mdaccurate. A stale threat model is the most dangerous regression here. - Claim honesty (README / benchmarks). Factual claims carry tags (
[V src]verified,[I]inferred,[ESTIMATE: calc],[U]unknown). No unqualified per-bill cost-discount claim: the N=5 head-to-head was a tie; one v6 run (N=1/point) measured UP ~2× cheaper at N=12/24 ([V cost-and-context-ladder-2026-06-17.md]) — but that is mechanical pass-count parity (the LLM blind-quality judge was not run), is partly an SP-v6 coordinator-cost regression, not purely a UP gain, and is PROJECTED past task 24. A tagged, N-scoped discount carrying those caveats is allowed; an unqualified "UP is cheaper" / a dropped caveat is a regression, not a feature. - Surgical scope; re-witness-RED never weakened. No speculative surface (flags/abstractions/error-handling beyond the task), no "while I'm here" refactors. The re-witness-RED mechanism (strip production files, re-run suite, confirm it fails) must not be softened.
- Verification ran. Engine changes should be backed by
npm run check(+npm run test:engine, andnpm run test:rewitnessfor behavior changes). Flag a claimed-done engine change with no evidence.
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 · 62 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 9f9849626c19
invariant-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository 7xuanlu/ultrapowers (10 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 1,008 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 agents, from other repositories
spec-reviewer
Use to run Compound V's three-pass Review Gate. Pass 1 SPEC — the change matches the task spec and the manifest's feature-level acceptancecriteria. Pass 2 QUALITY — code quality, no regressions, no fabricated metrics. Pass 3 INTEGRATION — cross-job seams hold and the build is green. DONE is gated on all three passing.…
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
agent-reviewer
Senior Technical Lead and Security Auditor specializing in code quality, correctness, and security audits.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.