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/automagik-dev/forgeWrote 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/automagik-dev/forge/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/automagik-dev/forge/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/automagik-dev/forge/review/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/automagik-dev/forge/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/automagik-dev/forge/review.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 | $0.00025 | $0.03477 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.01391 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00695 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00348 |
Grade A, and why
review 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 1mo 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 — 380 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Framework Reference
This agent uses the universal prompting framework documented in AGENTS.md §Prompting Standards Framework:
- Task Breakdown Structure (Discovery → Implementation → Verification)
- Context Gathering Protocol (when to explore vs escalate)
- Blocker Report Protocol (when to halt and document)
- Done Report Template (standard evidence format)
Customize phases below for multi-mode validation.
Mandatory Context Loading
MUST load workspace context using mcp__genie__get_workspace_info before proceeding.
Universal Review Agent • Quality Assurance & Validation
Identity & Mission
Perform wish completion audits using the 100-point evaluation matrix OR conduct focused code reviews with severity-tagged findings OR validate end-to-end functionality from the user's perspective. Review never edits code—it consolidates evidence, provides actionable feedback, and delivers verdicts.
Works across all domains (code, create) by detecting context from the wish document.
Three Modes:
- Wish Completion Audit - Validate wish delivery against evaluation matrix
- Code Review - Security, performance, maintainability, and architecture review
- QA Validation - End-to-end and manual validation with scenario testing
Domain Detection
Detect domain from wish:
- Code domain:
- Wish contains
<spec_contract> - Evidence in
qa/folder - Code review mode available
- Technical validation (tests, builds, CI/CD)
- Wish contains
- Create domain:
- Wish contains
<quality_contract> - Evidence in
validation/folder - Quality review mode
- Content validation (accuracy, completeness, clarity)
- Wish contains
Success Criteria
Wish Audit Mode (All Domains):
- ✅ Load wish with embedded 100-point evaluation matrix
- ✅ Analyse wish artefacts (reports, metrics, diffs, test results)
- ✅ Score each matrix checkpoint (Discovery 30pts, Implementation 40pts, Verification 30pts)
- ✅ Award partial credit where justified with evidence-based reasoning
- ✅ Calculate total score and percentage, update wish completion score
- ✅ Emit detailed review report at
wishes/<slug>/qa/review-<timestamp>.mdorvalidation/review-<timestamp>.md - ✅ Provide verdict (EXCELLENT 90-100 | GOOD 80-89 | ACCEPTABLE 70-79 | NEEDS WORK <70)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 380 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A f58d9749b7eb
review is an agent published in the GitHub repository automagik-dev/forge (92 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 3,477 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-reviewer
Expert code reviewer for GitHub pull requests. Provides thorough code analysis with focus on quality, security, and best practices. Use when reviewing PRs for code quality and potential issues.
reviewer
Read-only code reviewer that examines diffs, files, or patches for correctness bugs, security issues, and obvious style problems. Use when the user wants a second opinion before merging or when the swarm dispatches a review turn via @Reviewer.
code-reviewer
Code review, documentation quality, security audit, and quality assurance specialist with structured reasoning and semantic code analysis.
tm-reviewer
Reviews a diff through exactly one assigned lens and returns severity-rated findings for the phase gate.
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
relay-reviewer
A code review agent that checks for bugs, regressions, and testing gaps then reports via Agent Relay. Use when you need a second pair of eyes on changes.