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.
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/first-fluke/oh-my-agentWrote 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/oh-my-agent/qa-reviewer)<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>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 | $0.00016 | $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 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- qa-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 75 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A f7406cc44fdf
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.
Other agents, from other repositories
sdd-verify
Verify implementation against SDD specs, tasks, strict TDD evidence, and review workload boundaries.
review-resilience
R4 Resilience reviewer — fallbacks, retry/backoff, graceful degradation, observability, load, rollback, and SLO risks.
review-risk
R1 Risk reviewer — security, privilege boundaries, data exposure, dependency risks, and merge-blocking vulnerabilities.
sdd-proposal
Write an SDD proposal for an approved change idea.
strict-reviewer
Strict code reviewer. Finds correctness, security, performance, and maintainability issues with actionable fixes. Use proactively after code changes.
refactor-reviewer
Refactoring review expert. Evaluates refactoring risk and verifies behavior preservation.