qa-reviewer

qa-reviewer is an agent for Claude Code, Codex from first-fluke/oh-my-agent. It costs 16 tokens per session (564 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-review agent that checks changes for security, speed, accessibility, and general code quality. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review a set of changed files or directories against OWASP security guidance, WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility guidance, performance concerns, error handling, naming, and tests.
Why use it?
It gives a structured review checklist and helps identify problems before code is accepted, without changing the source files.

Agent for Claude CodeCodex

Written for Claude Code: a Claude Code subagent (agents/*.md). Also seen: installed under .agents/ (shared by several agents).

Part of the oma plugin — 36 skills, 12 agents, 4 hooks shipped together

Good fit Use it to review a set of changed files or directories against OWASP security guidance, WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility guidance, performance concerns, error handling, naming, and tests.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/qa-reviewer
About the project

oh-my-agent is a harness for checking whether coding agents actually completed their work by verifying tests, required artifacts, independent reviews, and recorded decisions. It is used across multiple agent runtimes to make workflow results auditable instead of relying on an agent's own report. The catalogue add-ons provide parts of its skills, agents, hooks, MCP integrations, instructions, and plugins.

first-fluke/oh-my-agent · 1,275 stars · on GitHub · firstfluke.com

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/first-fluke/oh-my-agent

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Or install oma, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 36 skills, 12 agents, 4 hooks.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for qa-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/qa-reviewer.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/qa-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/qa-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/qa-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 16 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 564 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
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 5.1 $0.00016 $0.00564
Opus 5 $0.00008 $0.00282
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00113
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00056

Measured 9d ago against content hash f7406cc44fdf, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

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 9d 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.

Origin

Copies of this mod

1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:

.agents/agents/qa-reviewer.md · 75 lines

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

  1. Security (OWASP Top 10)
  2. Performance (N+1 queries, re-renders, bundle size)
  3. Accessibility (WCAG 2.2 AA)
  4. 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

  1. Every finding: file:line, description, fix
  2. Severity: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW
  3. Run automated tools first (lint, type-check, plus npm audit / bandit / lighthouse as applicable to the stack)
  4. No false positives — verify each finding
  5. Provide remediation code, not just descriptions
  6. PASS verdict: zero CRITICAL, HIGH, and MEDIUM issues
  7. WARNING verdict: zero CRITICAL and HIGH, but MEDIUM issues exist
  8. FAIL verdict: any CRITICAL or HIGH issue found
  9. Never modify source code — review only
  10. Never modify .agents/ files (SSOT) — run outputs under .agents/results/ and .agents/state/memories/ are the only exceptions

Read the full file on GitHub · 75 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. 9d ago First seen · 75 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A f7406cc44fdf

Subscribe to this mod's changes

qa-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository first-fluke/oh-my-agent (1,275 stars, last pushed today), 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 2026-08-30.