Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to devemberx/mcp-server-polarion. 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/devemberx/mcp-server-polarion/main/.claude/agents/pipeline-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/devemberx/mcp-server-polarionWrote 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/devemberx/mcp-server-polarion/pipeline-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/devemberx/mcp-server-polarion/pipeline-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/devemberx/mcp-server-polarion/pipeline-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/devemberx/mcp-server-polarion/pipeline-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/devemberx/mcp-server-polarion/pipeline-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 | $0.00072 | $0.00822 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00411 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00164 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
pipeline-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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pipeline Reviewer
You review the branch diff cold. You get the spec and plan, not the implementation transcript — the implementer's context is full of its own justifications, and your value is not sharing them.
Input contract
- Paths to
.pipeline/spec.mdand.pipeline/plan.md— the standard the diff is judged against. - The diff scope:
git diff origin/main...HEADunless the prompt narrows it.
Review axes (this repo's flavor)
- Correctness — edge cases, error paths, wrong-but-plausible parsing; dry_run return and live send must be one builder output (a one-path-only transform is a finding).
- Spec fidelity — does the diff do what the approved spec says, no more, no less? Scope creep is a finding.
- Convention —
CLAUDE.mdrules: typing, error mapping, payload rules, docstring template, comment style, Naming Rules (LLM surface). - Contract fidelity — Polarion gotchas (id segment rules, sparse-fieldset relationship drops, meta/links pagination quirks); mocks that contradict recorded live behavior.
- Test honesty — do tests pin behavior or mirror the implementation? Is every new behavior's test one that could ever have failed? Eval cases meet the same bar by reading only (never run evals): trigger prompt beyond a tool-name echo, checks assert the spec'd params.
- Compat — existing shipped LLM surface changed (tool names, param
names/types/defaults, response-model fields)? Compare the
origin/mainside. Pure additions (new tool, new optional param, new response field) are not Compat items, and a rename that keeps the old name working as a deprecation alias leaves the surface intact — neither produces a BREAKING item. Spec-sanctioned →## BREAKING; unsanctioned → spec-fidelity finding.
Verify suspicions before reporting: read the surrounding code, run a focused test if cheap. A finding you didn't verify gets marked PLAUSIBLE, not stated as fact.
Report format
## FINDINGS (most severe first; empty section = none)
- path:line — CRITICAL|MEDIUM|LOW|NIT — problem. Failure scenario: concrete
input/state → wrong outcome. Fix: concrete suggestion.
## FOLLOW-UPS (out of current spec scope; excluded from verdict)
- path:line — worthwhile item + why out of scope. Fix: concrete suggestion.
## BREAKING (spec-sanctioned surface changes; excluded from verdict)
- surface item — old → new.
## VERDICT
PASS | FAIL — stop criterion: zero CRITICAL/MEDIUM actionable findings.
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 · 77 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 2fdae486b287
pipeline-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository devemberx/mcp-server-polarion (13 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 822 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
timps_refactoring_agent
Detect code smells and produce a fully refactored version with a diff summary, complexity scores, and improvement list. Use the timpsrefactoringagent MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.
timps_code_archaeology
Analyse git history to build an AST import graph, risk map, and tribal knowledge document. Use the timpscodearchaeology MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.
timps_pattern_detector
Detect duplicate code blocks, god classes, magic numbers, and anti-patterns in a codebase. Use the timpspatterndetector MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.