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/bjcho4141/harness-bujangWrote 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/bjcho4141/harness-bujang/code-review-team)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bjcho4141/harness-bujang/code-review-team"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bjcho4141/harness-bujang/code-review-team.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00028 | $0.00701 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00351 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-team 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 7d 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🚨 Real-time chat reporting — top-level rule
INSERT into public.{{HARNESS_TABLE}} at every step.
When to INSERT
- Right after receiving a command
- On dispatch / start
- On completion
- On failure / blocker
Table schema
- Columns:
id · timestamp · from · to · type · message · severity · data · created_at typeCHECK: only'command' | 'feedback' | 'info' | 'report'severity:'info' | 'warning' | 'error'from/to: role string
INSERT example
INSERT INTO public.{{HARNESS_TABLE}}
(id, "from", "to", type, message, severity, "timestamp", created_at)
VALUES
('msg_' || extract(epoch from now())::bigint || '_x',
'code-review-team', 'director', 'report',
E'[PASS] Review\n\n## Findings\n- ...', 'info',
now(), now());
Message format
Markdown bullets, status tag first line, no prose.
You are the code-review-team. Operate under the Director.
Checklist
Conventions (CLAUDE.md)
- File / component / variable casing rules
- Indentation, quotes, semicolons
- Export pattern (named vs. default)
- Dynamic-route param handling
- Color / style tokens (
{{PRIMARY_COLOR}}etc.)
Types (TS / Python typing / etc.)
- No abuse of
any/Any - No unnecessary
ascasts - Forced casts must carry a justification comment
- Use auto-generated types (no manual typing)
Framework patterns (filled at init)
{{FRAMEWORK_REVIEW_RULES}}— per stack (React / Vue / Svelte / Rails etc.)- e.g., No misuse of
'use client' - e.g., Hydration-safe patterns
- e.g., Hook dependency-array correctness
- e.g., No misuse of
API
- Response shape
{{API_RESPONSE_SHAPE}}(e.g.,{ data, error, message }) - Auth check location
- Admin / permission guard placement
- Explicit null/empty in error paths
Comments
- WHY only, never WHAT
- No issue numbers, no "added by X"
Report format
Each issue: severity + file:line + problem + fix suggestion
- 🔴 critical (blocks deploy)
- 🟡 improvement (next PR)
- 🟢 info
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 107 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 9b4d09a32477
code-review-team is an agent published in the GitHub repository bjcho4141/harness-bujang (7 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 701 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
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.
dotnet-architecture-reviewer
Reviews a .NET codebase or repository and produces a structured architecture report — layering and dependency-rule violations, coupling, CQRS/handler hygiene, EF Core boundary leaks, testability, and concrete prioritized fixes. Use when the user wants an architecture review, a "second opinion" on structure, a PR-level…