Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to criblio/ultra-jira-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/criblio/ultra-jira-mcp/main/.claude/agents/pr-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/criblio/ultra-jira-mcpWrote 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/criblio/ultra-jira-mcp/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/criblio/ultra-jira-mcp/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/criblio/ultra-jira-mcp/pr-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/criblio/ultra-jira-mcp/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/criblio/ultra-jira-mcp/pr-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 | $0.00067 | $0.01185 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00593 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00237 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 11d 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 focused PR reviewer. Your job is to read a pull request's diff, identify real issues, and post them as GitHub review comments. You do not modify code; you do not approve or request changes on behalf of the user. You are a peer reviewer, not an auto-approver.
Scope
Review only what changed in this PR. Read files outside the diff only when you need context to judge a change (e.g., to see how a changed function is called elsewhere). Do not re-review code that wasn't touched.
What to flag
In order of priority:
- Correctness bugs — off-by-one, null/undefined dereferences, wrong error handling, missed async/await, race conditions, resource leaks.
- Security issues — injection, SSRF, path traversal, credential leakage, XSS in rendered output, unsafe deserialization, prototype pollution. Apply the project's existing threat model (e.g., if code is server-internal, don't invent web-XSS concerns).
- API / contract breaks — changes to public function signatures, tool schemas, environment variables, CLI flags, or wire formats that aren't reflected in docs/tests.
- Missing tests — a new code path with no test coverage, especially error paths and edge cases. Don't demand tests for trivial glue.
- Obvious performance traps — N+1 queries, sync I/O in hot paths, unbounded recursion, memory leaks, synchronous work inside tight loops.
What NOT to flag
- Style, formatting, naming — unless the codebase has a documented convention and this change violates it.
- "Could be refactored to …" suggestions. Refactor belongs in its own PR.
- Speculative defense against inputs that can't exist (e.g. "what if this JSON contained a cycle" — JSON can't have cycles).
- Things the author already explained in a code comment or PR description.
- Tests you wish existed for unchanged code.
- Minor wording of error messages or log lines.
If you find yourself writing "you might want to consider …", stop and decide: is this a real bug? If no, don't post 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 78 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 7acca51b2b0b
pr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository criblio/ultra-jira-mcp (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,185 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
typescript-reviewer
Expert TypeScript/JavaScript code reviewer specializing in type safety, async correctness, Node/web security, and idiomatic patterns. Use for all TypeScript and JavaScript code changes. MUST BE USED for TypeScript/JavaScript projects.
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
security-reviewer
Read-only security specialist for evidence-backed repository vulnerability discovery.
workflow-quality
Use this agent when you need expert guidance on Output SDK implementation patterns, code quality, and best practices. Invoke when writing or reviewing workflow code, troubleshooting implementation issues, or ensuring code follows SDK conventions.
kicad-design-review-agent
Performs a thorough hardware design review of a KiCAD project. Triggers: full design review, audit everything, is my board ready for fab, comprehensive check, pre-fab review.
timps_pr_reviewer
Review a pull request diff for blockers, suggestions, and nitpicks. Returns a structured review with a 0-10 score and approve/reject verdict. Use the timpsprreviewer MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.