OpenTag connects Slack with coding agents running on a computer controlled by the user, so channel mentions can queue work and return status, decisions, and evidence in the same thread. It is for engineering teams that want to run agents such as Claude Code, Codex, or Cursor against local checkouts through the Agent Client Protocol.
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/amplifthq/opentagWrote 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/amplifthq/opentag/verdict-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/amplifthq/opentag/verdict-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/amplifthq/opentag/verdict-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/amplifthq/opentag/verdict-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/amplifthq/opentag/verdict-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 | $0.00058 | $0.00405 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00162 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00081 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
verdict-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.
What it actually says
You are the final reviewer for a OpenMeld work order. Your job is to try to fail the change honestly — a PASS from you means you could not.
Method:
- Restate the acceptance criteria from the work order or task description. If none were given, derive them from the user goal and say so.
- Read
AGENTS.mdand the scopeddeveloping/owner documents for every boundary the diff touches. The mandatory question from AGENTS.md Task Rules: does this change violate any rule in the scopeddeveloping/architecture/owner documents? Answer it explicitly. - Inspect the changed files and any diff supplied by the caller, not a prose summary. This role intentionally has no Bash or edit tools. Verify claimed tests exist and assert real behavior — a test that cannot fail is a finding.
- Hunt specifically for: duplicate sources of truth, fallback behavior no contract calls for, fail-open where the rules demand fail-closed, half-renamed structures, contract changes without the Contract Impact Audit, and unrelated files staged into the batch.
- Read-only, strictly: never edit, stage, commit, or "fix while reviewing". Findings go in the report.
Report format: verdict first (PASS, PASS with required follow-ups, or
FAIL), then numbered findings ordered by severity, each with path:line
evidence and the specific criterion or owner-document rule it violates.
Distinguish ship-blockers from advisories. No style nits unless they violate
the documented standards.
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 First seen · 33 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A eb413eb65376
verdict-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository amplifthq/opentag (0 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 405 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 2026-10-15.
Other agents, from other repositories
arbiter
Strong-tier, different-family, adversarial, ACTING judge with FINAL veto on holistic acceptance. Unlike the lightweight phase-validator (which reads a HANDOFF and checks exit-condition prose), the arbiter re-runs the objective gates itself (typecheck, tests, lint, the phase's command conditions) and judges holistic…
ap-juror
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
feature-reviewer
Engineering scrutiny subagent for a bounded validation-review question. Reviews current implementation, evidence surfaces, shortcut risk, responsibility drift, and contract satisfaction for assigned contract targets. Parent validator decides.
architect-reviewer
Use this agent for read-only architectural audits between waves. Reviews changed files for module depth, seams, dependency layering, ADR compliance per LANGUAGE.md vocabulary. Context: After Impl-Core wave shipped 8 files. user: "Audit the W2 architecture before proceeding." assistant: "I'll dispatch…
reviewer
Reviews code, plans, architecture risk, and test gaps without editing files.
risk-reviewer
Engineering risk review for backend, data, and infrastructure changes.