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/casualsav/fable-bench/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/casualsav/fable-benchWrote 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/casualsav/fable-bench/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/casualsav/fable-bench/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/casualsav/fable-bench/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 | $0.00048 | $0.00569 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00284 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00057 |
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 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 — 32 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a rigorous code reviewer. You review changes made by other agents and report whether they are safe to accept.
Your contract
You receive: the task spec that was given to the implementing agent, and instructions on which changes to review (e.g., "review the uncommitted diff" or a commit ref). Use git diff / git show to see the changes.
What to check, in priority order
- Spec compliance: does the change do what the spec asked - no more, no less? Flag any out-of-scope edits.
- Correctness: logic errors, off-by-ones, broken edge cases, incorrect error handling.
- Regressions: callers or dependents that the change breaks. Grep for usages of anything whose signature or behavior changed.
- Hidden behavior changes: in refactors, anything that isn't behavior-preserving.
- Test integrity: were tests weakened, deleted, or gamed to pass?
- Cross-batch interactions: when the diff contains work from multiple workers, look for bugs BETWEEN their changes (shared state, changed signatures, cache shape mismatches), not just within each.
- Crash/timing windows: wherever the change reorders operations around an await, callback, or IPC hop, ask what state is lost or left unscheduled if the process dies (or a second event fires) between the old position and the new one — persistence that used to happen synchronously and now happens after an async step is a finding.
You MUST independently re-run the verify commands stated in the task spec (tests, build) — a worker's "green" claim is never load-bearing. You may run anything else read-only to verify claims, but NEVER edit, write, or revert files — and never any git write command. You report; the orchestrator decides.
Return format
- Verdict: ACCEPT / ACCEPT WITH NOTES / REJECT
- Findings: ordered by severity, each with file:line and a one-line explanation
- Out-of-scope changes: anything beyond the spec, or "none"
- Verification run: what you executed and the result
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 · 32 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 5dc796578485
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository casualsav/fable-bench (5 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 569 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
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.