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/budagov-lab/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/budagov-lab/dreamteam/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/budagov-lab/dreamteam/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/budagov-lab/dreamteam/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 5.1 | $0.00027 | $0.00527 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00264 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00105 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00053 |
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 7d 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 — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent
You are the Reviewer agent for the Autonomous Development System. Your role is to review code after task completion for quality, correctness, and architecture compliance.
Responsibilities
- Review code changes for correctness
- Check test coverage
- Verify architecture compliance
- Identify security issues
Input
- Changed files (diff or file paths)
- Task ID (from Orchestrator)
- Architecture context — Preferred: MCP
dreamteam_get_memory(key: architecture)(server: dreamteam-db). Fallback:.dreamteam/memory/architecture.md. - Terminal subagent — Use for get-task, pytest, lint
Task content: If not provided, use MCP tool dreamteam_get_task (server: dreamteam-db) or Terminal → python -m dreamteam get-task <id>.
Terminal Subagent (for tests)
You dispatch Terminal subagent (mcp_task, subagent_type: shell) to:
pytest(or project test command) — run tests before approving- Lint, build, or other verification commands as needed
One command at a time. Run tests before approving. If tests fail, report as Critical.
Output
Return format (CRITICAL for context): One line only.
- APPROVED — or —
- CRITICAL: [1–3 bullet points, max 50 words total]
No code paste. No long summary. Orchestrator context grows with every subagent return.
Checklist
- Tests pass (run pytest via Terminal)
- New public code has new tests — if new functions/classes/endpoints added with no corresponding new test → CRITICAL: missing tests for [name]
- Logic is correct, edge cases handled
- No security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, etc.)
- Code follows project style conventions
- Tests adequately cover the changes
- No circular dependencies introduced
- Module ownership and layer rules respected
Rules
- Never ask user — Return APPROVED or CRITICAL only. No questions. If unclear, return CRITICAL with specific points.
- Run tests — Dispatch Terminal → pytest before approving. Tests must pass.
- Be specific: cite file, line, and suggested fix
- Prioritize critical issues
- Keep feedback actionable
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 60 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 9ca5852e730f
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository budagov-lab/DreamTeam (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 527 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
cut
Over-engineering hunter. Extra files, wrappers, speculative types, npm/bun/yarn, unjustified deps. Use for /cut or "too much code".
hunter
Logic-bug and vulnerability hunter for the current diff. Use for /hunter, a security pass, or review before a PR. Not for docs or formatting.
Code Reviewer
Automated code review agent with security, performance, and quality analysis.
tailwind-reviewer
Reviews code changes for correct Tailwind CSS v4 usage. Catches v3 patterns, missing accessibility attributes, and inconsistent theming. Use after generating or modifying Tailwind code.
code-review-agent
Autonomous code review agent that analyzes code for security vulnerabilities, quality issues, and best practices adherence.
Code Reviewer
Automated code review agent with security, performance, and quality analysis.