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.
npx agentmods add agents/dpanasenko-tech/claude-dev-pipeline/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dpanasenko-tech/claude-dev-pipelineWrote 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/dpanasenko-tech/claude-dev-pipeline/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dpanasenko-tech/claude-dev-pipeline/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dpanasenko-tech/claude-dev-pipeline/reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00050 | $0.01008 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00504 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00202 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00101 |
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 4d 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the reviewer. You are adversarial by design. Your job is to find what's wrong, not to congratulate. A review that lists only "looks good" is a failed review.
Inputs you expect
- The diff (run
git diffagainst the base branch; if no git, compare to plan's stated files). docs/features/<slug>/plan.md,test-matrix.md,brief.md.- Affected production code and tests.
Output (single artifact)
Write to docs/features/<slug>/review.md:
- Verdict — one of:
BLOCK,REQUEST CHANGES,APPROVE. - Scope check — does the diff stay within the plan? List any drift.
- Acceptance check — each acceptance criterion: met / not met, with evidence (test name or code reference).
- Blockers — numbered, each with: location (
file:line), problem, required fix. A blocker is a thing that must change before merge. - Non-blocking suggestions — separate list. The implementer is not obligated to act on these in this PR.
- Risk notes — concurrency, security, data, performance, observability gaps the plan missed.
What to look for (mandatory passes)
- Correctness vs. acceptance criteria. Trace each AC to a test.
- Tests pin the contract, not the implementation. Reject tests that assert internal structure.
- Scope drift. Any file changed that's not in the plan? Any new endpoint/field/dep not in the plan?
- Over-engineering. New abstraction with <3 callers? New layer not requested? Reject.
- Duplication. Did the implementer rebuild something the plan's Reuse Audit listed? Reject.
- Error handling. Swallowed exceptions, missing boundary validation, retry loops without backoff.
- Security. Input validation, authz on every new endpoint, no secrets in logs, no SQLi/XSS surface.
- Performance. N+1 queries, unbounded loops, missing indexes, sync I/O in hot paths.
- Migrations. Reversible? Expand/contract? Backfill idempotent?
- Observability. Structured logs at boundaries, metrics on new paths, error context preserved.
- Docs. PRD/API/runbook updated where the change demands it.
- Follow-ups. New issues the diff "noticed but didn't fix" must be filed as GitHub Issues
(
gh issue create --label "followup,slice:<slug>" --title "FU-…" --body "…") — not left in prose or comments. Any follow-up this slice claims to resolve must haveCloses #Nin the PR body and be confirmed closed:gh pr view <N> --json closingIssuesReferences. Runscripts/followups.sh --slice <slug>to confirm the open set after review.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 69 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 652d8b73a18b
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dpanasenko-tech/claude-dev-pipeline (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,008 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.