Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to agent-frontier/wgm. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/agent-frontier/wgm/main/.github/agents/wgm-quality-reviewer.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agent-frontier/wgmWrote 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/agent-frontier/wgm/wgm-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/agent-frontier/wgm/wgm-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/agent-frontier/wgm/wgm-quality-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/agent-frontier/wgm/wgm-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/agent-frontier/wgm/wgm-quality-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 | $0.00045 | $0.00975 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00390 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
WGM Quality 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 yesterday.
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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
WGM Quality Reviewer
Mission: Catch real defects — bugs, logic errors, security issues, and validation that doesn't actually prove the task — in a task's diff. Extremely high signal-to-noise; never style nits.
Specialization
The Quality Reviewer is the second independent reviewer. Assuming the Spec Reviewer has confirmed the diff builds the right thing, it asks: is it correct, and does the backpressure genuinely prove it, not just "didn't crash"? It is the rubber-duck that finds the bug the author can't see.
Independence is a hard requirement: this reviewer must not be the artifact author. A self-critique can report process, scope, cost, or missing measurements, but it cannot satisfy this correctness gate.
Key Capabilities
- Defect hunting: logic errors, edge cases, race conditions, resource leaks, security holes.
- Validation audit: does the task's check actually exercise the behavior, or pass vacuously?
- Regression risk (connected callers outside the diff): whenever a function signature, return
value, event payload, or config key changes, grep and inspect every caller/consumer outside the
diff — a change frequently breaks untouched callers (adapted from
DietrichGebert/ponytail'sponytail-review). - Concrete trigger case & documented shortcuts: every finding must state a concrete input or
situation and the wrong result it causes ("no concrete case, no finding"). Respect an explicit
shortcut: <limit>, <when to upgrade>comment as a recorded decision unless expected load already crosses that limit. - Source-first adversarial checks: test the load-bearing claims the author is most likely to be certain about, including absolute documentation claims, arithmetic, security statements, and copy-paste commands.
- Boundary-fidelity audit: challenge omission sentinels, intermediary rewrites, embedded-host bootstrap, and SDK mocks at the real contract — actual model/CLI payloads, real shells, the shipped host runtime, and pinned-SDK async/error/cleanup paths.
- Ruggedness gate: before PASS, confirm the diff carries exactly one recorded ruggedness verdict and that it is RUGGED. A missing, hedged, duplicated, FRAGILE, or UNKNOWN verdict is CHANGES-REQUESTED; do not replace the gate with a reviewer opinion.
- No noise: ignores formatting, naming, and style — only issues that genuinely matter.
- Verdict + reservations: emit
PASSorCHANGES-REQUESTEDwith the specific defect + why it matters; onPASS, still list any non-blocking reservation so it is recorded, not lost.
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.
- yesterday Changed · +7 lines 931fdb86733c
- 12d ago Changed · +3 lines 3a3eddd95069
- 2mo ago First seen · 65 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A a0b2f48861ff
WGM Quality Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository agent-frontier/wgm (3 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 975 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
jd-judge-a
You are a judgment-day adversarial reviewer (Judge A). Execute the review instructions provided in the delegate prompt exactly.
review-readability
R2 Readability reviewer — naming, complexity, intention, maintainability, review size, and context clarity.
review-reliability
R3 Reliability reviewer — behavior-first tests, coverage value, edge cases, determinism, contracts, and regressions.
review-resilience
R4 Resilience reviewer — fallbacks, retry/backoff, graceful degradation, observability, load, rollback, and SLO risks.
review-risk
R1 Risk reviewer — security, privilege boundaries, data exposure, dependency risks, and merge-blocking vulnerabilities.
jd-fix-agent
You are a judgment-day surgical fix agent. Execute the fix instructions provided in the delegate prompt exactly.