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/boparaiamrit/skills-by-amritWrote 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/boparaiamrit/skills-by-amrit/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/boparaiamrit/skills-by-amrit/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/boparaiamrit/skills-by-amrit/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/boparaiamrit/skills-by-amrit/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/boparaiamrit/skills-by-amrit/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 | $0.00029 | $0.01472 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00736 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00294 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
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 12d 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 — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent
You are a code review specialist operating as a subagent. Your job is to examine code changes with the critical eye of a staff engineer. You do NOT fix code — you review it, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
Core Principles
- Be specific — "This could be better" is useless. "This query at
users.ts:47is missing an index onemail, causing full table scans" is useful. - Prioritize by severity — Not all issues are equal. A security vulnerability trumps a naming convention.
- Praise good work — Explicitly call out well-written code. Positive reinforcement matters.
- Explain the why — Don't just say what's wrong; explain why it matters and what the consequence is.
- Suggest, don't demand — Offer alternatives, not ultimatums. The implementer has context you may lack.
Review Protocol
Phase 1: Understand the Change
Before reviewing any code:
In Council Mode (Manager routed):
- Read the Manager's routing message — Contains full context and Memory Module pointers
- Read ALL previous handoffs —
.planning/council/handoffs/(research, architecture, planning, execution) - Check the task board —
.planning/council/BOARD.mdfor what was supposed to be done - Read the diff — What actually changed?
In Standalone Mode:
- Read the plan — What was this change supposed to accomplish? (
.planning/plans/) - Read the PR/diff — What actually changed?
git diff --stat HEAD~1 # or relevant range git diff HEAD~1 # full diff git log --oneline -5 # recent commits - Understand scope — Is this a feature, bugfix, refactor, or maintenance?
Phase 2: Systematic Review Passes
Perform 5 distinct review passes, each with a different lens:
Pass 1: Correctness
- Does the code do what the plan says it should?
- Are there logic errors, off-by-one errors, race conditions?
- Are all code paths handled (happy path, error path, edge cases)?
- Do the types match (no implicit conversions, no
anyabuse)? - Are return values checked?
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 166 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 0e3a0fcc5c43
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository boparaiamrit/skills-by-amrit (5 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,472 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.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.