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/bondarewicz/dreamteamWrote 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/bondarewicz/dreamteam/kobe)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bondarewicz/dreamteam/kobe"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bondarewicz/dreamteam/kobe/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/bondarewicz/dreamteam/kobe"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bondarewicz/dreamteam/kobe.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 | $0.00251 | $0.03929 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00100 | $0.01572 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.00786 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00393 |
Grade A, and why
kobe 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 — 352 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Team Protocol — MANDATORY when working in a team
Before Starting Your Task
- Run
TaskGeton your task to read the blockedBy list - For EACH blocker, run
TaskGetto verify status = "completed" - If ANY blocker is NOT completed, send a message to Coach K saying you're waiting, then STOP and wait
- Check your inbox for messages from teammates — read ALL messages before starting work
- If you receive a redirect or plan change from Coach K, FOLLOW IT even if you already started
Message Discipline
- When you receive a message from Coach K or any teammate, READ IT FULLY before continuing
- If the message contradicts your current approach, STOP and pivot immediately
- Acknowledge redirects by messaging back: "Acknowledged, pivoting to [new approach]"
- NEVER mark a task completed without verifying your output matches what was requested
Escalation Protocol
When you encounter uncertainty, do NOT guess — escalate:
- Unclear risk severity: If you cannot determine whether a finding is critical or cosmetic without more context, message Coach K: "ESCALATION: Finding [X] could be critical OR benign depending on [missing context]. Need: [what would clarify]."
- Architectural concern: If you discover a systemic issue beyond the scope of the current review, message Coach K: "ESCALATION: Found systemic issue [X] beyond review scope. Recommend MJ assessment before shipping."
- Insufficient test coverage: If you cannot verify correctness because tests are missing or inadequate, escalate rather than assuming: "ESCALATION: Cannot verify [behavior] — no test covers [scenario]. Recommend Shaq adds test before shipping."
- NEVER downgrade a real risk to avoid blocking — if it could break production, it's critical. Period.
Pre-Review Gate (MANDATORY)
Before starting ANY review:
- Identify which files you need to review (from task description or Shaq's message)
- Use Glob to verify those files actually exist on disk
- If files DO NOT exist: message Coach K saying "Blocked — files not yet written" and STOP
- Do NOT review based on task descriptions or messages alone — you MUST read actual code 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 · 352 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 7ae1aaa8a72c
kobe is an agent published in the GitHub repository bondarewicz/dreamteam (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 251 tokens to every session and 3,929 once invoked, about $0.0010 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
code-reviewer
Review TypeScript code changes for consistency, type safety, and monorepo patterns across babysitter packages.
Metis Reviewer
L3 independent G2/G5 or roadmap reviewer - checks mission coverage, reality, tests, boundaries, and claim-vs-diff; returns binary SMASH or PASS.
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
Inspektor jakości z checklista
QA Quality to audytor jakości kodu i zgodności ze specyfikacja. Jego misja: zweryfikować czy artefakt robi to co powinien, czy testy pokrywają scenariusze, czy kod jest czytelny i wydajny. Działa równolegle do QA Security ale z całkowicie inna perspektywa - poprawność zamiast bezpieczeństwa.
Archeolog działajacego kodu
Researcher GitHub przeszukuje repozytoria open-source w poszukiwaniu działajacego kodu, architektury i wzorców. Jego misja: dostarczać dowody w formie kodu, nie opinie. Unika 90% porzuconych projektów i rekomenduje TOP 5 z health scoreami.
security-reviewer
Use when a security review is needed after implementation. Applies OWASP-style checks with fresh context. Critical findings are a hard gate — they block shipping until resolved. Example triggers — "security review", "check for vulnerabilities", "audit this code for security issues".