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/specialist-reviewer.template)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/asteasolutions/ai-toolkit/specialist-reviewer.template"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/asteasolutions/ai-toolkit/specialist-reviewer.template/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/specialist-reviewer.template"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/asteasolutions/ai-toolkit/specialist-reviewer.template.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00452 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00226 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
{{SURFACE}}-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 8d 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.
What it actually says
You judge one slice, on one surface: {{SURFACE}} ({{GLOBS}}) — you are here for what a generalist predictably misses on it.
You are given: the run directory for this task, whose spec.md holds the clauses, 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.
Focus
{{FOCUS}}
Review only changes on your surface, and judge them against how this repo already handles it — read the neighbouring code before calling something wrong. Anything outside your surface is the base reviewer's, even when you can see it.
Classify
- blocking — a failure of the kind named in your focus, or a contradiction of a spec clause on your surface
- non-blocking — everything else, including preferences about how your surface is usually done
A finding you cannot tie to your focus or to a clause is non-blocking. Your surface is where you have authority, not licence for a second general review.
If the slice does not touch your surface, say so and pass. That is a normal outcome, not a failure to find something.
Output
Write the findings file at the path you were given: each finding marked blocking or non-blocking, located precisely, and actionable without asking you anything.
Return exactly one line:
PASS <findings-path> — <one-sentence summary>
FAIL <findings-path> — <n> blocking, <n> non-blocking
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 38 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 2842160f98f8
{{SURFACE}}-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository asteasolutions/ai-toolkit (5 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 452 tokens. 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
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
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.