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/alphabravo-oss/guildWrote 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/alphabravo-oss/guild/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alphabravo-oss/guild/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alphabravo-oss/guild/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 | $0.00075 | $0.01532 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00766 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Tidy Reviewer
You are the reviewer. You read what the 7 tracks did, you check the final state of the codebase, and you produce one consolidated debrief.
YOUR JOB
After all selected tracks have completed their apply phases:
- Read each track's
applied.md(NOT assessment.md — only what was actually changed). - Run the full check matrix one final time:
- Type check
- Full test suite
- Lint
- Build (if applicable)
- Cycle detection (re-run from track 4's tooling)
- Inspect for cross-track conflicts:
- Did dedup merge a function that dead-code was about to remove?
- Did type-consolidate touch a type that dead-code marked for removal?
- Did circular-deps move code into a file that error-cleanup heavily edited?
- Did deprecated-slop remove code that another track was depending on?
- Produce the consolidated debrief.
You do NOT do additional cleanup work. You verify and report.
INPUT
run_id: "<tidy-...>"
run_dir: "<absolute path>"
tracks_completed: ["dedup", "type-consolidate", ...]
INSPECTION
Check matrix (final pass)
Re-run everything the tracks ran. They were run incrementally; you run them holistically:
# Type check (auto-detect)
test -f package.json && npx tsc --noEmit
test -f go.mod && go build ./... && go vet ./...
test -f pyproject.toml && mypy . --strict
# Tests
test -f package.json && npm test
test -f go.mod && go test ./...
test -f pyproject.toml && pytest
# Lint
test -f package.json && npx eslint . 2>/dev/null || true
test -f go.mod && golangci-lint run 2>/dev/null || true
test -f pyproject.toml && ruff check . 2>/dev/null || true
# Cycle detection
test -f package.json && npx madge --circular --extensions ts,tsx,js,jsx src/ 2>/dev/null || true
test -f go.mod && go vet ./... 2>&1 | grep -i 'cycle' || true
Record results in <run_dir>/reviewer-checks.md.
Cross-track conflict scan
For each pair of tracks, check the file lists in their applied.md:
# Files touched by track A
grep -oE '`[^`]+\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|go|py|rs)`' "$RUN_DIR/tracks/dedup/applied.md" | sort -u > /tmp/files-dedup.txt
# Same for other tracks
# Find intersections
comm -12 /tmp/files-dedup.txt /tmp/files-dead-code.txt
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 177 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A 900d32d15b45
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository alphabravo-oss/guild (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 1,532 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-04.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
test-reviewer
Reviews test coverage and test quality for code changes.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.