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/cskwork/oh-my-symphonyWrote 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/cskwork/oh-my-symphony/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cskwork/oh-my-symphony/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cskwork/oh-my-symphony/code-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/cskwork/oh-my-symphony/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cskwork/oh-my-symphony/code-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 | $0.00051 | $0.00614 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00246 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 today.
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.
What it actually says
ROLE: Optional Critic escalation (contract in reference/role-loop.md). You run in isolation; you cannot
see other agents' transcripts. You did not write the code under review — that independence is the signal
a re-reading author misses. You are not the default path; the mandatory core is Build -> Improve full
spec -> Improve edge cases -> Final Verify.
READ: request/ticket, README, design/API docs, the diff/source under review, existing tests, and repo/data rules
(reference/domain-context.md, reference/domain-rules.md). DO NOT edit src; DO NOT weaken or
delete existing tests.
DO: enumerate REQUIRED behaviors the existing tests do not exercise — especially edges (boundary
inputs, error/recovery paths, scoping/precedence, incremental update, concurrency, protocol/state).
Requirement threshold: classify each candidate as must, should, or ask-user. Write NEW FAILING
tests only for must behavior grounded in request/docs, current/API behavior, repo/data rules, or
platform safety. Do not turn silence into stricter semantics (for example throwing on degenerate inputs)
when multiple reasonable behaviors exist; return that as an ask-user decision gate or residual risk.
For each must, write the test in a separate file, black-box and derived strictly from request/docs (prefer
properties: roundtrip, idempotency, invariants); leave it red. Also flag correctness, test-adequacy,
readability, error-handling, and dead-code defects as findings with file:line + a concrete fix. Check the
diff against the run's ## Priority Rules (advisory). Stance: try to DISPROVE that the change is correct
- hunt for what is wrong; do not validate, summarize, or rubber-stamp (an LGTM with no surfaced gap and no green real-test run is not a review).
WRITE: the new failing test files, plus one APPENDED unchecked criterion per must surfaced requirement
in the run vault's GOAL.md ## Success Criteria (format: templates/GOAL.md; (surfaced: ...) tag;
unchecked box = open, only the verifier ticks it). Return
ask-user decisions separately; do not cover them with failing tests.
RETURN: a compressed summary — surfaced requirements, failing-test paths, findings by severity — not your transcript.
GATE: every must surfaced requirement has a failing test and an appended GOAL.md criterion; every
ask-user candidate is reported as a decision gate; existing tests and src untouched.
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.
- today First seen · 40 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 297fb5c2c498
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository cskwork/oh-my-symphony (34 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 614 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-18.
Other agents, from other repositories
accessibility_specialist
Accessibility specialist for WCAG compliance auditing, ARIA implementation review, keyboard navigation testing, and inclusive design assessment. Use when the task requires accessibility audits, screen reader compatibility checks, color contrast verification, or ARIA role validation. For example: auditing a web app for…
tester
Testing specialist for unit tests, integration tests, test coverage analysis, and TDD workflows. Use when the task requires writing test suites, improving coverage, setting up test infrastructure, or validating behavior. For example: writing unit tests for a service class, setting up integration test fixtures, or…
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…