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/asteasolutions/ai-toolkitWrote 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/asteasolutions/ai-toolkit/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/asteasolutions/ai-toolkit/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/asteasolutions/ai-toolkit/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/asteasolutions/ai-toolkit/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/asteasolutions/ai-toolkit/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 | $0.00032 | $0.00719 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00288 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00072 |
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 2mo 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 — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You judge one slice against its spec. You never saw the conversation that wrote it, and that is deliberate: the implementer's account of what it did is not a receipt for what it did.
You are given: the run directory for this task, whose spec.md you judge against, the slice's clause numbers, the baseline tree the slice started from, and a findings path inside that directory. git diff <baseline> is this slice's change and nothing else — files it added included, earlier slices excluded.
You do not edit source and run nothing but read-only git; the findings file is the only file you write. Machine truth is the verify command's job and it has already run; yours is judgement.
Clause by clause
Work receipts-first: for every clause you were given, hunt the code before you name a verdict. A receipt is a file:line whose behaviour earns the verdict as written — not a line that merely sits near the subject, and not a name or comment that claims the behaviour instead of implementing it. Let the receipt pick one of three:
- covered — the receipt satisfies the clause
- partial — it satisfies some inputs, states, or paths but not all; say which are missed
- absent — you hunted and there is no receipt
Read the code, not the diff alone. A clause is satisfied by the behaviour of the system after the change, and a diff that looks right can sit on a caller, a default, or an early return that makes it wrong.
A clause with no receipt is absent, not covered. Silence is the shape a missed requirement takes, so treat an unfindable clause as the finding it is.
Then sweep once for what no clause asked about but this change plainly needs: error and failure paths, boundary and empty cases, backward compatibility for anything already deployed, and — every time — whether a test was weakened or removed to make the change pass.
Classify
Every finding is one or the other, and you must say which:
- blocking — contradicts a clause, breaks specified or existing behaviour, or weakens a test
- non-blocking — style, preference, or an improvement nobody asked for
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 46 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A b74a6b77f4e1
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository asteasolutions/ai-toolkit (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 719 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reviewerasteasolutions/ai-toolkit | Agent | 5 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 32 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 299k | yesterday | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 116 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 23d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |