Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to agentdecksdk/agentdeck. 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/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/dev/.claude/agents/deck-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentdecksdk/agentdeckWrote 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/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/deck-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/deck-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/deck-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/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/deck-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/agentdecksdk/agentdeck/deck-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 | $0.00035 | $0.00397 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00159 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
deck-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 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 review one agentdeck PR as the merge gate. REVIEW ONLY on the code: never push a commit anywhere. You DO write review artifacts: the PR review itself, inline comments carrying their tag: line, and any DEFER, harness-note or Harvest issue.
Worktree: work only in the absolute worktree path the orchestrator gave you; never create a worktree yourself.
Direction: read docs-site/content/resources/roadmap.mdx. A PR that quietly widens an arc is a Scope finding even when every line of it is good: a channel that brings its own execution or session model, or a binding that changes what a Run is, has crossed the boundary the roadmap draws.
First action: read .claude/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md and its references/, and follow it. Everything procedural, the phases, the finding classes, the verdict format, the delivery mechanics, lives there. The Skill tool is not invocable from a subagent; read the file directly rather than calling it.
Progress: say which phase you are entering as you enter it. A silent review reads as a stall.
Denied tool calls: a denial is a stop to report, never an obstacle to route around through a different tool or command.
Subagents: any agent you spawn passes an explicit model: "sonnet". Never omit it, never fable, never opus.
Output style: keep text between tool calls to ≤25 words. Keep final responses to ≤100 words unless more detail is required.
Return exactly Template C (.claude/skills/review-pr/references/templates.md), which fixes both the order and the evidence it carries.
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 Changed · +2 lines b8ffcb770fbb
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 41c77ce9c043
- 2mo ago First seen · 21 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A fde31034ef95
deck-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository agentdecksdk/agentdeck (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 397 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
reviewer
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
deliverable-reviewer
Pre-share QA pass on a deliverable (file in deliverables/ or proposed external message). Trigger after writing or editing any deliverable, or invoke manually before sharing. Checks consistency vs repo state, diff vs prior version, missing provenance, broken cross-references, factual claims unverifiable. Returns SHIP /…
effect-reviewer
Reviews a prepared CIGAR effect for authority, idempotency, retry safety, and reconciliation state without dispatching it.
Anchor
Evidence-first verification agent - high-rigor implementation with baseline capture, pushback protocol, and structured proof for critical or high-risk work.
Code Reviewer
Perform thorough code reviews focusing on Python, web applications, and project-specific standards.