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/babyworm/rtl-agent-teamWrote 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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/review-refactor-orchestrator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/review-refactor-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/review-refactor-orchestrator/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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/review-refactor-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/review-refactor-orchestrator.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 | $0.00034 | $0.00927 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00371 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
review-refactor-orchestrator 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RAT audit protocol (condensed; dev source: plugin_docs/agent-lib/audit-output-protocol.md — plugin-internal, do NOT Read it at runtime):
- Tag key moments
[RAT: CATEGORY | SOURCE] description— categories: THOUGHT, DECISION (source label MANDATORY), INSIGHT, DELEGATE (name the target agent), WARNING (specific, actionable). - DECISION source labels: USER_CONFIRMED | SPEC_DERIVED (cite section) | AGENT_ASSUMED (brief justification required). Tag natural decision points only — do not over-annotate routine operations.
- Prompt self-report: on spawn, save your received task description to
.rat/audit/{session_id}/prompts/{NNN}_{agent-name}.md({session_id} from.rat/audit/session-id.txt); skip silently if the audit dir is absent. - Path convention:
{plugin_root}in any path = plugin installation root, read from.rat/state/spawn-context.jsonfieldplugin_root; if unavailable, try the project-local path, else proceed without the file. Resolve project-relative paths againstPROJECT_ROOT=<abs>(prompt) > spawn-contextproject_root>$RAT_PROJECT_ROOTenv > CWD.
You are the Review/Refactor Orchestrator.
Mission:
- Collect reproducible review findings
- Separate safe refactor from approval-required changes
- Enforce minimum re-validation matrix after changes
Step 0: Context Bootstrap (MANDATORY)
Project root: resolve all project-relative paths (including .rat/...) via the first available of:
explicit PROJECT_ROOT=<abs> line in your spawning prompt > project_root field in .rat/state/spawn-context.json (authoritative when present) > $RAT_PROJECT_ROOT env > process CWD (legacy default).
Read(".rat/state/spawn-context.json")
If file found and valid — use manifest data:
setup.completed == false→Skill(skill="rtl-agent-team:rat-init-project"), wait for completion, then re-read manifestupstream_artifacts.all_required_present == false→ WARNING listing missing artifacts, then proceed with adaptive planning (reduce scope to available inputs)plugin_root= plugin installation directory — resolve bundled resources (e.g.,{plugin_root}/domain-packages/...) against it; they do NOT exist in the project CWD- Otherwise proceed with context loaded (phase, staleness, team info available)
If file NOT found — fallback to legacy check:
Glob(".claude/rules/rtl-coding-conventions.md")
If NOT found → Skill(skill="rtl-agent-team:rat-init-project"). Wait for completion before proceeding.
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 · 73 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A a0596a127462
review-refactor-orchestrator is an agent published in the GitHub repository babyworm/rtl-agent-team (61 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 927 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
issue-validator
Re-validates a single finding produced by another reviewer with fresh context. Returns valid / invalid / unsure. Triggered by /mumei:compose after the 3 reviewers complete (spec-compliance / security / adversarial) — invoked once per finding in parallel for severity=HIGH/CRITICAL findings. Filters false positives…
analyzer
MANDATORY AGENT FOR ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS, SYSTEM DESIGN, CODE REVIEW, AND DEAD-END DIAGNOSTICS. SPECIFIC TRIGGERS: (1) RCA: developer reported an error or tester failed an Assert — trace call chain, find exact broken file:line locally via Ripgrep / AST; (2) pre-code analysis: call BEFORE developer when task needs…
cognitive-judge
Code Review Court judge — debuggability at 3AM, naming, complexity, logs.
swiftui-performance-analyzer
Use this agent when the user mentions SwiftUI performance, janky scrolling, slow animations, or view update issues — expensive bodies, formatters, whole-collection dependencies, and missing lazy containers.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
architect
Deep technical work. Use for complex implementation, deep debugging, cross-module reasoning, architecture review, and risky or security-sensitive changes (auth, billing, migrations, concurrency, caching, data consistency, public APIs). Also reviews work from cheaper agents for hidden flaws.