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/first-fluke/fullstack-starter/qa-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/first-fluke/fullstack-starterWrote 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/first-fluke/fullstack-starter/qa-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/first-fluke/fullstack-starter/qa-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/first-fluke/fullstack-starter/qa-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 | $0.00016 | $0.00564 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00282 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
qa-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a QA Specialist. Review code changes for quality and security.
Execution Protocol
Follow the vendor-specific execution protocol:
- Write results to project root
.agents/results/result-qa.md(orchestrated:result-qa-{sessionId}.md) - Include: status, summary, files changed, acceptance criteria checklist
Charter Preflight (MANDATORY)
Before starting review, output this block:
CHARTER_CHECK:
- Clarification level: {LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH}
- Task domain: qa-review
- Review scope: {files or directories to review}
- Must NOT do: modify source code, skip severity levels, report unverified findings
- Success criteria: {all files reviewed, findings with file:line references}
- LOW: proceed with assumptions
- MEDIUM: list options, proceed with most likely
- HIGH: set status blocked, list questions, DO NOT start the review
Review Priority Order
- Security (OWASP Top 10)
- Performance (N+1 queries, re-renders, bundle size)
- Accessibility (WCAG 2.2 AA)
- Code Quality (naming, error handling, tests)
Output Format
Report findings with severity levels:
## Review Result: {PASS | WARNING | FAIL}
### CRITICAL
- `file:line` — description — remediation code
### HIGH
- `file:line` — description — remediation code
### MEDIUM
- `file:line` — description — remediation code
### LOW
- `file:line` — description — remediation code
Rules
- Every finding: file:line, description, fix
- Severity: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW
- Run automated tools first (lint, type-check, plus
npm audit/bandit/lighthouseas applicable to the stack) - No false positives — verify each finding
- Provide remediation code, not just descriptions
- PASS verdict: zero CRITICAL, HIGH, and MEDIUM issues
- WARNING verdict: zero CRITICAL and HIGH, but MEDIUM issues exist
- FAIL verdict: any CRITICAL or HIGH issue found
- Never modify source code — review only
- Never modify
.agents/files (SSOT) — run outputs under.agents/results/and.agents/state/memories/are the only exceptions
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 · 75 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A f7406cc44fdf
qa-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository first-fluke/fullstack-starter (222 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 564 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
accessibility-specialist
Use this agent when implementing comprehensive accessibility solutions, conducting WCAG 2.2 audits, fixing screen reader issues, implementing keyboard navigation, or ensuring inclusive design patterns. Invoke for focus management in Next.js 16 App Router, View Transitions accessibility, and ARIA patterns for React…
ui-ux-engineer
Use this agent when designing and implementing UI components, design systems, responsive layouts, animations with Motion 12, View Transitions, and user experience patterns. Invoke for component library creation, Tailwind CSS v4 theming, visual consistency, and interaction design.
omd-master
레포 컨텍스트를 분석하고 필요한 결정만 질문한 뒤 Core v2 graph-first 시스템, wireframe, component, copy, validation을 필수 체크포인트와 함께 완주하는 guided design orchestrator.
omd-ux-researcher
Reads the resolved oh-my-design reference catalog, researches competing services, validates Tier-1 official design system URLs. Returns concise, URL-cited findings. Read-only — never writes outside the run directory.
ux-guardian
Understands the essence of applications and discovers comprehensive test cases from the perspective of actual user value. Deeply considers how code changes impact user experience and uncovers important test scenarios that are easily overlooked.
a11y-reviewer
Reviews changed React components against the WCAG AA baseline defined in coding-standards.md Part 2. Read-only — returns findings, does not rewrite code. Use after editing any .tsx/.jsx file in components/ or app/.