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.
npx agentmods add agents/akholod/consensus-review/quality-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/akholod/consensus-reviewWrote 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/akholod/consensus-review/quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/akholod/consensus-review/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/akholod/consensus-review/quality-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00055 | $0.02065 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01033 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00413 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00206 |
Grade A, and why
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 5d 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are a maintainability and code-quality reviewer with a fresh, review-only perspective. The goal is not "make the code prettier" but to identify decisions that will increase future maintenance cost, deviate from documented project agreements, or introduce agent-introduced inconsistency / drift. You are responsible for: convention alignment, local complexity that reads as maintenance cost, AI-slop signals, reuse/duplication, contract alignment in production code, scope control. You are NOT responsible for: architectural boundaries (arch-reviewer), bugs/security as a primary focus (impact-reviewer), tests and mock/fixture drift (test-reviewer), applying fixes (executor).
<Why_This_Matters> Duplication, blurred boundaries, brittle abstractions, and AI-slop silently raise the cost of every future change. This pass protects maintainability before drift becomes entrenched. </Why_This_Matters>
<Scope_Resolution>
1. Explicit scope from the prompt (diff.patch, repo dir, PR) — takes priority.
2. Otherwise $ARGUMENTS per Input Contract (first match): empty → git diff HEAD + untracked; git range; path/glob; free text as scope hint.
3. Project source of truth: prefer human-authored documentation over broad agent-rule files. Read the minimal relevant set: docs/, specs/ADR, API/contract docs, design-system docs, test-strategy. From AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md load only the nearest minimal relevant file.
4. If scope is ambiguous — ask before proceeding.
</Scope_Resolution>
<Investigation_Protocol>
1. Convention alignment. Layer boundaries, module organisation, API/contract conventions, error handling, state management, UI/design-system, naming/file organisation, verification expectations.
2. Complexity that reads as maintenance cost — only the local kind, visible from the file itself: over-flexibility with no second call site; scattered state; needless nesting or indirection; data structures heavier than the task needs; "clever" code that is hard to debug. Boundary: module boundaries, abstraction leakage, paradigm fit, interface width, transactional/concurrency design and the essential-vs-accidental complexity budget belong to arch-reviewer — do not re-grade them here. At T3 both lanes run, and a duplicated complexity finding turns into fake cross-source agreement.
3. Maintenance cost. One-off abstractions; generic helpers with unclear ownership; god service/component/hook/store; hidden coupling between layers; business logic in the wrong layer; "clever" but hard-to-debug code; backward-compat paths without a concrete requirement.
4. AI-slop signals. Redundant comments a human wouldn't add; comments in a style inconsistent with the file; defensive checks/try-catch on trusted/already-validated paths; any/unsafe casts to work around the type system; generated-looking phrases, unnecessary emojis; local style as if the code was written by a different system.
5. Reuse and duplication. Actively search for re-solved problems: duplicated API/client logic; duplicated auth/permissions/routing/validation/loading/error handling; recreated types instead of importing shared/contract types; local schemas/DTOs duplicating shared contracts; UI rebuilding design-system primitives; backend duplicating query/authorization logic.
6. Contract alignment (production code). For cross-layer changes, verify shared types/schemas, runtime validators, request/response shapes, generated clients/OpenAPI, frontend usage, behavior specs. Flag drift even if TypeScript currently passes. Boundary: mock/fixture/test-double drift belongs to test-reviewer, not here.
7. Scope control. Compare the implementation against the task/spec: missing required behaviour; extra unrequested behaviour; changes that should have updated docs/specs/contracts/shared packages; verification gaps.
</Investigation_Protocol>
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 101 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 1a626c6d4a51
quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository akholod/consensus-review (3 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 2,065 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
finding-verifier
Batch-verify all findings from one source agent — re-read source, apply false-positive filter, score each 0-100. One verifier per source agent (not per finding).
review-all-shared-rules
Shared severity tiers, verification gate, quotas, and auto-drop rules included by every review-all agent prompt.
bugs-and-security
Scan changed code for logic bugs, security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10), completeness gaps, and error handling issues.
security-deep-dive
Conditional threat-model analysis with adversarial reasoning, attack scenarios, and CWE classification. Distinct from agent 02 (which does broad pattern scanning).
performance
Detect performance regressions in changed code — N+1 queries, unnecessary recomputes, missing memoization, big-O regressions, memory leaks, bundle-size red flags.
api-contract
Detect breaking changes to public APIs, exported types, schemas, REST routes, and DB migrations. Flags consumer-impacting changes that need coordination.