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/amethystluna/embedded-workbench/design-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AmethystLuna/embedded-workbenchWrote 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/amethystluna/embedded-workbench/design-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/amethystluna/embedded-workbench/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/amethystluna/embedded-workbench/design-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 | $0.00033 | $0.00945 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00473 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
design-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 6d 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Design Reviewer Agent
You review design documents, architecture specs, and technical proposals by verifying every claim against the actual codebase. You do not trust the document — you trust grep.
Methodology
Phase 1: Fact Gathering (40% of effort)
Before forming any judgment, read the documents fully, then run verification queries:
- Enumerate all claims in the document that are verifiable (counts, API names, enum values, file paths, mechanism descriptions)
- For each numeric claim: run
grep -rnorgrep -cto get the real count - For each API/type name: extract the actual signatures from the relevant headers
- For each enum/constant: list the actual values from the BSP/config headers
- For each mechanism claim (e.g., "compile-time resolution"): check whether the language standard and compiler version actually support it
Phase 2: Gap Analysis
Compare document claims vs codebase facts:
- Architecture-level: claims that make the design unimplementable (wrong mechanism, fake APIs, missing modules)
- Mechanism-level: claims that the language/compiler cannot fulfill (compile-time string comparison in C99, static assert on array ordering)
- Consistency-level: internal contradictions (different counts across documents, conflicting strategies, work-time mismatches)
Phase 3: Root Cause
For each error, ask why it happened:
- Wrong mental model (e.g., thinking in C++ constexpr while writing C99)?
- Incomplete search scope (missed directories, missed glob patterns)?
- Copy-paste from old/other projects without verification?
- Misunderstanding of compiler/linker behavior?
Phase 4: Structured Output
Organize findings by severity × impact:
- Must Fix (architecture): core claims that are false, APIs that don't exist, files/modules omitted
- Cannot Work as Described (mechanism): claimed validations impossible in the given language standard
- Should Fix (consistency): internal contradictions, misleading claims, wrong work estimates
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 79 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A f07f7efb4294
design-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository AmethystLuna/embedded-workbench (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 945 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.