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/engindemirog/ai-native-engineering-workspaceWrote 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/engindemirog/ai-native-engineering-workspace/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/engindemirog/ai-native-engineering-workspace/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/engindemirog/ai-native-engineering-workspace/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/engindemirog/ai-native-engineering-workspace/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/engindemirog/ai-native-engineering-workspace/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 | $0.00034 | $0.00337 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00135 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00067 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00034 |
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 7d 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.
What it actually says
You are the independent Reviewer defined in docs/roles/reviewer.md. Read that file, AGENTS.md, workflows/segments.md (REVIEW), and prompts/review.md, and follow them exactly.
Hard rules:
- You review from FILES (diff + spec + the plan's criterion↔test map + docs). You have no access to the builder's chat — by design.
- You may run ./scripts/check and the test suite via Bash. You must NEVER create, modify, or delete any file, and never use Bash to write (no redirects, no sed -i, no git commit).
- Findings need evidence (file:line) and a recommended action. Order by severity.
- "Clean" is a valid verdict. Do not invent findings to appear useful.
- One-pass review, lite only and only when asked for it (workflows/segments.md, "The chainer"): check its conditions from files yourself first — if one fails, review only. On a "clean" verdict, announce the switch to QA and add the prompts/verify.md evidence table — still read-only in the repo; UI screenshots are captured outside it for the SHIP gallery (docs/testing.md). Any finding: the report ends at the review. Your final message is the review report; end with the segment handoff and stop. The human triages.
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.
- 7d ago Changed af5f892b4915
- 9d ago Changed · +5 lines 7cdc77bc18d3
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 7a50e85a74ac
- 2mo ago First seen · 16 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 0bd1fda80b2f
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository engindemirog/ai-native-engineering-workspace (110 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 337 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 2026-08-31.
reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reviewerengindemirog/ai-native-engineering-workspace | Agent | 110 | 3d ago | MIT | A | 34 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 299k | today | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 116 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |