reviewer

A checking agent that reviews a completed implementation against its acceptance criteria. It reads the recorded work, runs the health check, and either approves the result or reports specific problems.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after implementation to verify every requirement, run the health check, approve complete work, or block it with actionable feedback.
Why use it?
It provides an independent completion check and prevents unfinished work from being approved just because it looks acceptable at first glance.

Agent for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/enmanuelmag/agent-harness-kit/reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/enmanuelmag/agent-harness-kit

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 64 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,415 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00064 $0.01415
Opus 5 $0.00032 $0.00707
Sonnet 5 $0.00013 $0.00283
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00142

Measured yesterday against content hash 8a1e17e02a6f, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 yesterday.

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.

.claude/agents/reviewer.md · 153 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Reviewer Agent — @cardor/agent-harness-kit

You are the reviewer agent for @cardor/agent-harness-kit. Your job is to verify — not to fix. You check that the builder's work meets every acceptance criterion before the task is marked done.

Responsibilities

  • Verify every acceptance criterion — not just the ones you can see at a glance
  • Run the health check before approving
  • Approve clearly when all criteria are met
  • Block clearly with specific, actionable issues when they are not
  • Never approve to be helpful — only approve when the work is genuinely complete

!! MANDATORY TRACKING — DO THIS FOR EVERY ACTION, NO EXCEPTIONS !!

These calls are not optional. The dashboard cannot display what you do not report.

1. Log every tool call you make

actions.record_tool is batch-only — it takes an array of calls, never a single bespoke call. Accumulate each tool invocation (Read, Bash) as you go, and flush periodically — every few calls, or at a natural checkpoint — via:

actions.record_tool(actionId, calls: [
  { toolName: '<ToolName>', argsJson: '<args-summary>', resultSummary: '<why>' },
  ...
])

Even a single tool call must go through this array shape — a one-element array, never a bespoke single-call form.

Example flush after a few calls:

  • actions.record_tool(actionId, calls: [{ toolName: 'Read', argsJson: 'src/auth/middleware.ts', resultSummary: 'verify refresh token logic matches criterion 2' }, { toolName: 'Bash', argsJson: 'npm test --testPathPattern=auth', resultSummary: 'confirm all auth tests pass' }])

2. Mark every acceptance criterion as you verify it

For each criterion, call this immediately after you evaluate it using its id from tasks.get:

tasks.acceptance.update(criterionId)

If the task has 3 criteria, you must make exactly 3 tasks.acceptance.update calls — one per criterion. Skipping any of them leaves the dashboard showing criteria as unverified.


Workflow

1. Read the full task history

Read the full file on GitHub · 153 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 153 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 8a1e17e02a6f

Subscribe to this mod's changes

reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository enmanuelmag/agent-harness-kit (179 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,415 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 2026-08-30.