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 | $0.00016 | $0.00332 |
| Sonnet 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 11d 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.
- 11d 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 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 664 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 2026-08-31.
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.
auditor
Static quality auditor for one code task. Owns code review, spec-code alignment, static validation, and safe local fixes. Does not run the game.
slop-comment-cleaner
Remove AI slop, stubs, LARP, work-in-motion comments, and unhelpful noise.
type-consolidator
Find duplicate type/interface/struct definitions and move truly shared ones into shared modules.
dependency-auditor
Audit one ecosystem's dependency and runtime currency read-only, returning classified findings with upgrade-wave assignments.
file-reviewer
Review a batch of 5-10 files against the complete code-review checklist, returning structured JSON findings with severity levels.