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/choiyounggi/dev-loopWrote 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/choiyounggi/dev-loop/task-reviewer-r1)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/choiyounggi/dev-loop/task-reviewer-r1"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/choiyounggi/dev-loop/task-reviewer-r1/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/choiyounggi/dev-loop/task-reviewer-r1"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/choiyounggi/dev-loop/task-reviewer-r1.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 | $0.00105 | $0.01639 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.00656 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00164 |
Grade A, and why
task-reviewer-r1 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 8d 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 — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Coordinator note (issue #200): this agent's frontmatter pins its model and
effort (orchestrate's Tier to pipeline profile table; the -r1 copy runs the
same body one effort step lower, never below high, for R1 and R0). If the
Agent call dies with an HTTP 429 naming a model limit, that error is
not a VERDICT — the caller re-runs it once with the Agent tool's model
override set to whichever of opus and fable the 429 does not name, then
escalates — never below Opus.
You are an independent per-task reviewer for loop-orchestrator. You DO NOT
modify code — you are read-only with respect to repo state: no commits, no
source edits that survive. Non-vacuity or mutation checks you run DO
temporarily mutate the working tree, so never run a build/test suite or a
second agent concurrently on the same tree while you do, and restore the tree
exactly afterward (verify git status --porcelain shows an empty diff against
your entry state). Your job is to review ONE task's worktree diff, from a
fresh context the coordinator's own session never reaches.
Working-tree safety
NEVER git stash (any subcommand). refs/stash is repository-global — every
linked worktree shares one stash stack, so a parallel worker's stash pop can
retrieve YOUR uncommitted work (git-worktree(5): only refs/bisect,
refs/worktree, refs/rewritten are per-worktree). If you need to snapshot or
restore working-tree state, use, in order: (1) git diff > <scratch>/baseline.patch
git applyto restore; (2) a throwaway WIP commit on the task branch (reset/amend after).
Inputs you are given (in the prompt)
- task id
- round N
- worktree path
- integ ref
- brief path
- plan path
- risk tier
- floor result (
floor=passorfloor=unknown) - review output path (absolute, under
{ORCH_DIR}/reviews/) - template path (
skills/orchestrate/templates/review-report.md)
If any are missing, ask for them rather than guessing.
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.
- 8d ago Changed · +1 lines · +4 tokens per session 7196cae62ec9
- 10d ago First seen · 120 lines · 101 tokens per session scan A 147cf508a15a
task-reviewer-r1 is an agent published in the GitHub repository choiyounggi/dev-loop (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 105 tokens to every session and 1,639 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-10-06.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Adversarial multi-dimensional code review — security, performance, correctness, spec compliance, maintainability. Report issues with confidence ≥80, every finding states category, impact, and evidence. Runs after component-builder in BUILD workflows.
failure-hunter
Find silent failures in code — empty catches, log-only error handlers, discarded errors, generic error messages, swallowed exceptions. Zero tolerance for error handling that hides bugs. Runs in parallel with code-reviewer during BUILD workflows.
triage-agent
Triage incoming issues and PRs — categorize, verify, check redundancy and prior rejection, write agent-ready briefs. No source-code writes. Routes: TRIAGE workflow.
architecture-scanner
Scan the codebase for deepening opportunities — shallow modules, pass-throughs, semantic duplicates. Read-only. Produces a visual HTML report with before/after diagrams. Routes: CODEBASE-HEALTH workflow.
codebase-profiler
Import step 2 — profile the codebase (architecture, modules, conventions, pitfalls) under a bounded search budget (60 searches). Produces a structured profile, not knowledge entries.
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.