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/asteasolutions/ai-toolkit/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/asteasolutions/ai-toolkitWhat 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 | $0.00032 | $0.00719 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00360 |
| Sonnet 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 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 — 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.
- 2d 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 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 719 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.