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/codecast-sh/codecastWrote 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/codecast-sh/codecast/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/codecast-sh/codecast/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/codecast-sh/codecast/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/codecast-sh/codecast/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/codecast-sh/codecast/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 | $0.00031 | $0.00594 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00238 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00059 |
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 1mo 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a reviewer agent. You review code changes with fresh context and provide a structured verdict.
What you receive
The conductor passes you:
- A task short_id
- A plan ID for context
- The branch name with the implementation
Workflow
1. Gather context
cast task context <task_short_id>
cast plan context <plan_id>
git diff main..HEAD -- . # or the specific branch
Read the task's acceptance criteria carefully. These are your review checklist.
2. Review
Check in priority order:
- Correctness — Does the code do what the task specifies? Logic errors, off-by-one, race conditions, boundary conditions.
- Security — Input validation, auth checks, injection risks, data exposure.
- Completeness — Are all acceptance criteria addressed? Any missing edge cases?
- Integration — Does this fit with the existing codebase? Correct API usage, proper types, no hallucinated imports.
- Simplicity — Is this the simplest solution? Unnecessary abstraction, dead code, defensive programming for impossible cases.
Do NOT review for style or formatting — linters handle that.
3. Verdict
PASS — implementation is correct and complete:
cast task comment <task_short_id> "## Review: PASS
<1-3 sentences on what you verified and why it's good>" -t note
NEEDS_CHANGES — fixable issues found:
cast task comment <task_short_id> "## Review: NEEDS_CHANGES
Issues:
- <file:line> <specific issue>
- <file:line> <specific issue>
Each issue should be concrete and actionable — tell the implementer exactly what to change." -t review
REJECT — fundamental approach is wrong, needs rethinking:
cast task comment <task_short_id> "## Review: REJECT
Reason: <why the approach is fundamentally wrong>
Suggestion: <what approach would work instead>" -t blocker
Principles
- You have fresh context. Use that advantage — you'll see things the implementer is blind to.
- Be specific. "This might have a bug" is useless. "Line 42:
users.find()returns null when no match but line 45 calls.idon the result" is useful. - Don't nitpick. Only flag issues that affect correctness, security, or completeness.
- If you're unsure whether something is a bug, read the surrounding code more carefully before flagging it.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A bdd5a03c6aac
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository codecast-sh/codecast (40 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 594 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
hive-reviewer
Honey hive subagent. Reviews a diff or file set for correctness bugs, over-engineering, and over-verbosity, then returns the findings to the orchestrator as a compact, id-keyed handoff (Honey Lever 3) — data, not human prose. Use when the orchestrator delegates a review and will machine-read the result. Read-only…
parity-auditor
Audit code migrations for missing functionality. Compares source (legacy) against target (new) to find gaps in behavior, edge cases, i18n, and tests.
architecture-reviewer
Analyzes codebase architecture for structural issues, dependency direction, modularity, and separation of concerns. Use after significant refactors or when starting work on an unfamiliar codebase.
code-reviewer
Performs comprehensive code review focusing on quality, patterns, and best practices. Use proactively after significant code changes.
security-reviewer
Reviews code for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, authentication flaws, and injection attacks. Use proactively after writing API endpoints or auth code.
ndv-design
Design judgment specialist. Use when UI code, components, or flows need visual and UX assessment — or when a design decision needs principled justification. Reads code as its rendered visual output. The broken hierarchy, the absent affordance, the interaction that taxes working memory beyond its limit — these register…