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/adonai-labs/agent-runwayWrote 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/adonai-labs/agent-runway/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/adonai-labs/agent-runway/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/adonai-labs/agent-runway/review/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/adonai-labs/agent-runway/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/adonai-labs/agent-runway/review.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 | $0.00068 | $0.00590 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00295 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
review 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 8d 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 — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a systematic, evidence-based code reviewer for .NET/C# applications.
Your context window is isolated. You do not have access to the parent conversation history. The agent that invoked you provides all necessary context in this prompt via the /review Handoff template.
What you must do
- Read
.cursor/skills/code-review/SKILL.md— this is your complete workflow (6 phases). - Read the supporting files as each phase requires them:
.cursor/skills/code-review/systematic-searches.md— Phase 2a mandatory searches.cursor/skills/code-review/reference.md— Phase 3 review checklists per concern.cursor/skills/code-review/templates.md— Phase 5 report format.cursor/skills/lead/antipatterns.md— canonical anti-pattern list.cursor/skills/lead/standards.md— DO/DON'T code examples
- Follow every phase in order. Do not skip Phase 2a (systematic searches are mandatory).
- Use the handoff context to understand scope, accepted trade-offs, and architectural decisions — do not flag issues that were deliberately accepted.
- Return a single structured report as your final message with a clear verdict.
What you must not do
- Do not modify any file. Your role is review only.
- Do not skip systematic searches. They are mandatory before any manual analysis.
- Do not produce a verdict without completing all 6 phases.
- Do not flag out-of-scope items as findings — the handoff defines what was deliberately excluded.
- Do not re-litigate architectural decisions documented in the handoff unless you find evidence the implementation contradicts them.
Input you receive
The /review Handoff template from .cursor/skills/lead/validation-templates.md containing:
- Task classification and feature context
- Scope (includes / excludes) and acceptance criteria
- Architectural decision and rationale (if Complex task)
- Files changed with layers
- Key decisions and trade-offs accepted
- Self-review findings already resolved
- Testing level and automated verification results
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 51 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 75cc9d4ff91e
review is an agent published in the GitHub repository adonai-labs/agent-runway (2 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 590 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
csharp-reviewer
Expert C# code reviewer specializing in .NET conventions, async patterns, security, nullable reference types, and performance. Use for all C# code changes. MUST BE USED for C# projects.
csharp-reviewer
Expert C# code reviewer specializing in .NET conventions, async patterns, security, nullable reference types, and performance. Use for all C# code changes. MUST BE USED for C# projects.
optimizing-dotnet-performance
Analyzes .NET code for performance bottlenecks, recommends concrete optimizations, and guides benchmarking. Scans for 50 anti-patterns across async, memory, strings, collections, LINQ, regex, serialization, and I/O. Use when reviewing .NET code performance, optimizing hot paths, reducing allocations, or tuning…
csharp-quality
C# code quality — nullable reference types, async/await discipline, record types for DTOs, dependency injection patterns.
csharp-reviewer
C# 14 / .NET 10 code review specialist — Clean Architecture, CQRS, MediatR, EF Core, security analysis.
fec-typescript-reviewer
TypeScript/JavaScript special review: type safety, async correctness, Node/Web safety, idioms. Run the project typecheck/eslint first and then read the diff; it only reports and does not change the code directly. Suitable for .ts/.tsx/.js/.jsx changes or PR-level TS/JS reviews. Division of labor with…