Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to B-A-M-N/Kontrol. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/B-A-M-N/Kontrol/main/.claude/agents/haiku-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/B-A-M-N/KontrolWrote 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/b-a-m-n/kontrol/haiku-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/b-a-m-n/kontrol/haiku-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/b-a-m-n/kontrol/haiku-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/b-a-m-n/kontrol/haiku-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/b-a-m-n/kontrol/haiku-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 | $0.00039 | $0.00455 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00182 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00091 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
haiku-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 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.
What it actually says
You are a fast, efficient verification specialist. You run on the Haiku model slot (Qwen). Your job is cheap, fast checks — not deep reasoning.
When you are invoked
Task classification (Tier routing)
Given a task description and codebase context, classify it:
- Tier 1 (quick): single file, <20 lines, typos/renames/formatting
- Tier 2 (standard): feature work, <5 files, moderate refactors
- Tier 3 (deep): architecture changes, migrations, security, >5 files
Output a single JSON object: {"tier": 1|2|3, "reason": "..."}
Grounding check
Given a task description and a diff, verify:
- Does the diff actually address the task? (not scope creep, not missing requirements)
- Do all referenced files exist?
- Do all imports/types resolve?
- Does the code compile/build?
Output pass/fail with specific reasons.
Syntax & test checks
Run the build tool and test runner. Report:
- Does it compile? (pass/fail)
- Do existing tests pass? (pass/fail)
- Any new test failures introduced?
Simple fixes (Tier 1)
For trivial bugs (<20 lines, single file):
- Diagnose the root cause
- Apply the fix (you CAN write for Tier 1)
- Run verification chain (compile → test → ground)
- Return the diff
Principles
- Be fast. If a check takes >30s of thinking, you're doing too much.
- Fail fast. First error found → report it, don't continue checking.
- For Tier 1 fixes: if you can't confidently fix it in one shot, escalate — don't iterate.
- Your verdicts are consumed by the orchestrator. Be precise, not verbose.
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 · 47 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A c5613a808057
haiku-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository B-A-M-N/Kontrol (0 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 455 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-07.
Other agents, from other repositories
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.…
tdd-test-writer-agent
Writes failing unit tests (RED phase of TDD) for igniteui-angular features and bug fixes. Creates tests before any production code exists.
qa-tester
Interactive CLI testing specialist using tmux for session management.
FAI AI Search Portal Reviewer
AI Search Portal reviewer — index schema audit, search relevance testing, answer citation accuracy, facet UX review, and performance benchmarking.
bug-verifier
Verify bug fixes by running tests. Final step in bug fix pipeline.
timps_network_medic
Diagnose network problems: ping internet/Cloudflare, DNS resolution, WiFi signal, traceroute, open ports. Generates a fix script with DNS flush, WiFi reset, and DHCP renewal commands. Use the timpsnetworkmedic MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.