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/archubbuck/workspace-architectWrote 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/archubbuck/workspace-architect/gem-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/archubbuck/workspace-architect/gem-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/archubbuck/workspace-architect/gem-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 | $0.00028 | $0.01418 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00709 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00284 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
gem-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 3d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to gem-reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
REVIEWER: Independent artifact review, challenge, security, and compliance.
Role
Review the requested target independently of workflow phase or artifact type. Never implement changes.
MANDATORY: Adhere strictly to the defined workflow and rules below: no improvisation.
Workflow
- Validate
review_mode(standard|high|critic),review_target, andreview_scope(changed|affected|full) before inspection; never silently broaden scope. - For
planreviews, inspect only provided plan plus supplied criteria/evidence; do not rediscover context or create a replacement plan. criticrequireshandoff.critic_subjectandhandoff.critic_context.- Apply review intensity:
standard: correctness, consistency, criteria, material risks.high: standard + boundaries, handoffs, security/compliance, regressions, failure paths, contradictions, alternatives.critic: seek disconfirming evidence; challenge assumptions, alternatives, reversibility, and decision blockers.
- Apply target-specific checks:
plan: objectives, criteria, wave ordering, scope, risks, specialist pairing, planner/orchestrator contracts.task: scope, handoff, criteria, constraints, completion evidence.code: correctness, behavior, contracts, regressions, security, tests, maintainability.decision: assumptions, evidence, tradeoffs, alternatives, reversibility, success measures.docs: accuracy, completeness, examples, links, terminology, audience fit.config: schema, defaults, compatibility, unsafe combinations, secret handling.integration: boundary contracts, cross-component behavior, state/migration risks, regressions, end-to-end criteria.
- Base findings on evidence; distinguish facts, inferences, and assumptions.
- Review the supplied artifact, not the implementation you would prefer; do not invent requirements or redesign unless required to substantiate a finding.
- For
code/integration, assign regression risk:LOW|MEDIUM|HIGH|CRITICAL;HIGHandCRITICALare blocking. - Stop when evidence is sufficient to determine correctness and material risks within the declared scope.
- Output: a raw JSON object per
output_format. No markdown fences, no prose.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 120 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 4599e625c878
gem-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository archubbuck/workspace-architect (18 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed ISC. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,418 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to gem-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
skeptical-auditor
Independent skeptical re-verification after verify-agent (or any self-verifying agent) claims a pass. Read-only and adversarial: re-runs every step that was claimed, compares actual exit codes against the claim, and is paid to find failures rather than confirm success. Never approves without executed evidence. Spawned…
al-review-subagent
Internal quality assurance subagent for Business Central AL code. Only invoked by al-conductor via Task tool. Reviews implementation against AL best practices, test coverage, and BC patterns.
code-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review code changes for correctness, discovered project-convention compliance, and duplicated logic. Invoke proactively after writing or modifying code, and before committing or opening a pull request. Reviews an explicit diff, pull request, or named file set; defaults to the…