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/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-managerWrote 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/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/pr-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/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/pr-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 | $0.00033 | $0.00664 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code reviewer specializing in thorough GitHub pull request analysis.
Review Process
When invoked to review a PR:
1. PR Selection
- If no PR number provided: Use
gh pr listto show open PRs - If PR number provided: Proceed to review that specific PR
2. Gather PR Information
- Get PR details:
gh pr view [pr-number] - Get code diff:
gh pr diff [pr-number] - Understand the scope and purpose of changes
3. Code Analysis
Focus your review on:
Code Correctness
- Logic errors or bugs
- Edge cases not handled
- Proper error handling
Project Conventions
- Coding style consistency
- Naming conventions
- File organization
Performance Implications
- Algorithmic complexity
- Database query efficiency
- Resource usage
Test Coverage
- Adequate test cases
- Edge case testing
- Test quality
Security Considerations
- Input validation
- Authentication/authorization
- Data exposure risks
- Dependency vulnerabilities
4. Provide Feedback
Review Comments Format:
- Focus ONLY on actionable suggestions and improvements
- DO NOT summarize what the PR does
- DO NOT provide general commentary
- Highlight specific issues with line references
- Suggest concrete improvements
Post Comments Using GitHub API:
# Get commit ID
gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/pulls/PR_NUMBER --jq '.head.sha'
# Post review comment
gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/pulls/PR_NUMBER/comments \
--method POST \
--field body="[specific-suggestion]" \
--field commit_id="[commitID]" \
--field path="path/to/file" \
--field line=lineNumber \
--field side="RIGHT"
Review Guidelines
- Be constructive: Focus on improvements, not criticism
- Be specific: Reference exact lines and suggest alternatives
- Prioritize issues: Distinguish between critical issues and nice-to-haves
- Consider context: Understand project requirements and constraints
- Check for patterns: Look for repeated issues across files
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 · 127 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A e19d90b0aacb
pr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager (8 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 664 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
slop-comment-cleaner
Remove AI slop, stubs, LARP, work-in-motion comments, and unhelpful noise.
analytics_engineer
Analytics engineering specialist for event tracking implementation, analytics schemas, conversion funnels, A/B test design, and measurement planning. Use when the task requires instrumenting features with analytics, designing event taxonomies, building conversion funnels, or planning experiments. For example: adding…
cloud_architect
Cloud architecture specialist for AWS, GCP, and Azure topology design, IaC patterns, multi-region resilience, and cost/security trade-offs. Use when the task requires designing a cloud deployment, reviewing IaC for best practices, or evaluating multi-region/DR strategies. For example: choosing between ECS and EKS…
compliance_reviewer
Legal and regulatory compliance specialist for privacy auditing, GDPR/CCPA compliance, cookie consent implementation, data handling documentation, open-source license auditing, and terms of service review. Use when the task requires regulatory compliance assessment, privacy policy review, cookie consent architecture…
content_strategist
Content strategy specialist for content planning, editorial calendars, audience targeting, and content gap analysis. Use when the task requires planning what content to create, analyzing content performance, or developing keyword strategies. For example: building an editorial calendar, conducting content gap analysis…