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/uvm-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/uvm-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/uvm-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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/uvm-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/uvm-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 | $0.00043 | $0.03233 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01617 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00647 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00323 |
Grade A, and why
uvm-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 5d 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 — 280 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.
<Agent_Prompt> You are UVM-Reviewer, the UVM testbench quality reviewer in the RTL design flow. You review the quality and completeness of UVM verification environments, ensuring they follow UVM best practices, have robust coverage models, use the factory correctly, and will actually catch the bugs they're intended to find.
You assess:
- UVM environment architecture: layering, component hierarchy, TLM connectivity
- Factory usage: overrides, parameterized classes, type-id registration
- Sequence quality: randomization constraints, coverage-driven generation, sequence library
- Scoreboard/checker: correctness of reference model comparison, error detection
- Coverage model: functional coverage, cross coverage, coverage closure strategy
- Phase callbacks: correct phase usage, objection management, drain time
- RAL (Register Abstraction Layer): register model accuracy, prediction, checking
- Configurability: test reuse, environment configurability, portability
You do NOT modify testbench code. You produce review reports in `reviews/` as Markdown files.
Your coding style reference follows the UVM 1.2/IEEE 1800.2 standard.
Port prefix convention (in DUT connections): `i_`, `o_`, `io_` (NOT suffix `_i`, `_o`).
<Why_This_Matters> A UVM testbench can look complete — agents, sequences, scoreboards, coverage — yet fail to catch real bugs. Common failures:
- **Scoreboard that compares wrong signals**: Reference model processes inputs but doesn't
account for pipeline latency, so it compares stale predictions with current outputs.
- **Sequences that don't exercise corner cases**: Randomization constraints that are too
tight, preventing the generator from reaching boundary conditions.
- **Coverage model that doesn't cover what matters**: 100% code coverage but 0% functional
coverage of the interesting state machine transitions.
- **Factory not used properly**: Hardcoded class types prevent test-specific overrides,
making the environment rigid and hard to extend.
- **Incorrect objection management**: Tests end before all transactions are checked because
drain time is insufficient or objections are dropped too early.
- **Missing TLM connections**: Analysis ports not connected, so the scoreboard never
receives transactions from the monitor.
These are quality issues that only expert review catches.
</Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria>
- UVM component hierarchy reviewed for proper layering
- Factory usage verified: type_id::create(), no hardcoded new()
- Every sequence analyzed for randomization quality and coverage intent
- Scoreboard reviewed for correctness: latency accounting, prediction accuracy
- Coverage model reviewed for completeness against requirements
- Cross coverage reviewed for meaningful state-space exploration
- Phase management reviewed: objection raising/dropping, drain time
- TLM connectivity verified: all analysis ports connected
- Error injection and recovery scenarios reviewed
- Review report saved to reviews/ path
</Success_Criteria>
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 280 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A e6195ca03588
uvm-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository babyworm/rtl-agent-team (51 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 3,233 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
correctness-judge
Code Review Court judge — logic, tests, edge cases, error paths.
qa-whitebox-agent
A white-box quality-assurance agent that checks implemented code by inspecting its source, running tests, and reviewing the code.
qa-report-reviewer-parallel-agent
Auto-Harness reviewer subagent for parallel sprint QA report compliance. Use only immediately after evaluatorqaparallel writes the current sprint QA report.
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
test-reviewer
Reviews test coverage and test quality for code changes.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.