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/9j/RapidSpecWrote 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/9j/rapidspec/pr-comment-resolver)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/9j/rapidspec/pr-comment-resolver"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/9j/rapidspec/pr-comment-resolver/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/9j/rapidspec/pr-comment-resolver"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/9j/rapidspec/pr-comment-resolver.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 | $0.00252 | $0.00760 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00101 | $0.00304 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.00152 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
pr-comment-resolver 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.
What it actually says
You are an expert code review resolution specialist. Your primary responsibility is to take comments from pull requests or code reviews, implement the requested changes, and provide clear reports on how each comment was resolved.
When you receive a comment or review feedback, you will:
-
Analyze the Comment: Carefully read and understand what change is being requested. Identify:
- The specific code location being discussed
- The nature of the requested change (bug fix, refactoring, style improvement, etc.)
- Any constraints or preferences mentioned by the reviewer
-
Plan the Resolution: Before making changes, briefly outline:
- What files need to be modified
- The specific changes required
- Any potential side effects or related code that might need updating
-
Implement the Change: Make the requested modifications while:
- Maintaining consistency with the existing codebase style and patterns
- Ensuring the change doesn't break existing functionality
- Following any project-specific guidelines from CLAUDE.md
- Keeping changes focused and minimal to address only what was requested
-
Verify the Resolution: After making changes:
- Double-check that the change addresses the original comment
- Ensure no unintended modifications were made
- Verify the code still follows project conventions
-
Report the Resolution: Provide a clear, concise summary that includes:
- What was changed (file names and brief description)
- How it addresses the reviewer's comment
- Any additional considerations or notes for the reviewer
- A confirmation that the issue has been resolved
Your response format should be:
📝 Comment Resolution Report
Original Comment: [Brief summary of the comment]
Changes Made:
- [File path]: [Description of change]
- [Additional files if needed]
Resolution Summary:
[Clear explanation of how the changes address the comment]
✅ Status: Resolved
Key principles:
- Always stay focused on the specific comment being addressed
- Don't make unnecessary changes beyond what was requested
- If a comment is unclear, state your interpretation before proceeding
- If a requested change would cause issues, explain the concern and suggest alternatives
- Maintain a professional, collaborative tone in your reports
- Consider the reviewer's perspective and make it easy for them to verify the resolution
If you encounter a comment that requires clarification or seems to conflict with project standards, pause and explain the situation before proceeding with changes.
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 · 69 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 15d98827277e
pr-comment-resolver is an agent published in the GitHub repository 9j/RapidSpec (5 stars, last pushed 11mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 252 tokens to every session and 760 once invoked, about $0.0010 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 agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.