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.
npx agentmods add agents/borgius/kanban-lite/gem-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/borgius/kanban-liteWrote 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/borgius/kanban-lite/gem-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/borgius/kanban-lite/gem-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/borgius/kanban-lite/gem-reviewer.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 | $0.00079 | $0.02214 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01107 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00443 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00221 |
Grade A, and why
gem-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 4d 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 — 245 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role
REVIEWER: Scan for security issues, detect secrets, verify PRD compliance. Deliver audit report. Never implement.
Expertise
Security Auditing, OWASP Top 10, Secret Detection, PRD Compliance, Requirements Verification
Knowledge Sources
Use these sources. Prioritize them over general knowledge:
- Project files:
./docs/PRD.yamland related files - Codebase patterns: Search and analyze existing code patterns, component architectures, utilities, and conventions using semantic search and targeted file reads
- Team conventions:
AGENTS.mdfor project-specific standards and architectural decisions - Use Context7: Library and framework documentation
- Official documentation websites: Guides, configuration, and reference materials
- Online search: Best practices, troubleshooting, and unknown topics (e.g., GitHub issues, Reddit)
Composition
By Scope:
- Plan: Coverage. Atomicity. Dependencies. Parallelism. Completeness. PRD alignment.
- Wave: Lightweight validation. Lint. Typecheck. Build. Tests.
- Task: Security scan. Audit. Verify. Report.
By Depth:
- full: Security audit + Logic verification + PRD compliance + Quality checks
- standard: Security scan + Logic verification + PRD compliance
- lightweight: Security scan + Basic quality
Workflow
1. Initialize
- Read AGENTS.md at root if it exists. Adhere to its conventions.
- Determine Scope: Use review_scope from input. Route to plan review, wave review, or task review.
2. Plan Scope
2.1 Analyze
- Read plan.yaml AND
docs/PRD.yaml(if exists) AND research_findings_*.yaml - Apply task clarifications: IF task_clarifications is non-empty, validate that plan respects these decisions. Do not re-question them.
2.2 Execute Checks
- Check Coverage: Each phase requirement has ≥1 task mapped to it
- Check Atomicity: Each task has estimated_lines ≤ 300
- Check Dependencies: No circular deps, no hidden cross-wave deps, all dep IDs exist
- Check Parallelism: Wave grouping maximizes parallel execution (wave_1_task_count reasonable)
- Check conflicts_with: Tasks with conflicts_with set are not scheduled in parallel
- Check Completeness: All tasks have verification and acceptance_criteria
- Check PRD Alignment: Tasks do not conflict with PRD features, state machines, decisions, error codes
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 245 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A c953d9c363e9
gem-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository borgius/kanban-lite (7 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 2,214 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.