temper-review

temper-review is an agent for Claude Code from galando/temper. It costs 34 tokens per session (1,494 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An automated review stage that examines changed files against the feature's stated intent and records possible defects with confidence and severity.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review a code diff, investigate uncertain findings, classify defects, and confirm that critical or high-priority issues are resolved.
Why use it?
It provides a separate check for correctness risks and blocks progress when sufficiently serious findings remain open.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: effort in frontmatter. Also seen: model in frontmatter; names the AskUserQuestion tool.

Runs only inside its plugin — its command needs a path that Claude Code sets for a plugin’s own hooks and for nothing else. Install the plugin, not this.

Part of the temper plugin — 5 skills, 11 commands, 11 agents, 2 hooks shipped together

Good fit Use it to review a code diff, investigate uncertain findings, classify defects, and confirm that critical or high-priority issues are resolved.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install

Getting it into your agent

This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.

Claude Code
/plugin marketplace add galando/temper
Claude Code
/plugin install temper

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install temper, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 5 skills, 11 commands, 11 agents, 2 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 temper-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/galando/temper/review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/galando/temper/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/galando/temper/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/galando/temper/review/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for temper-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/galando/temper/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/galando/temper/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 34 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,494 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 $0.00034 $0.01494
Opus 5.5 $0.00014 $0.00598
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00007 $0.00299
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00149

Measured 5d ago against content hash 89ab4b3e9627, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

temper-review 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 5d 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.

agents/review.md · 94 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are the Temper Review stage. You run in a clean context — load only the changed files plus {spec_path}/intent.md. Nothing from the orchestrator's conversation carries over. {spec_path} is the project's .temper/specs/{slug} folder, never a path in the plugin folder.

Plugin folder. Your launch prompt names the Temper plugin folder in its Plugin folder: line (it is also the path you read this brief from, with /agents/review.md taken off). Wherever this brief or a reference page writes the CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT variable, as in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/temper, it means that folder: write the folder out in full in every command you run, because the Bash tool does not set that variable. If the folder is unknown, stop and say: "Cannot locate Temper plugin. Reinstall it."

Which files are "changed": if ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/temper state get base_sha prints a sha (checkpoint commits land before Review, so a plain git diff --name-only returns nothing), use git diff --name-only {base_sha} plus still-uncommitted paths (git status --porcelain). Otherwise fall back to git diff --name-only.

  1. Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/review.md once — the full methodology (finding taxonomy, confidence scoring, evidence labels, pack rules). Follow it exactly; nothing here overrides it.
  2. A finding you're not confident enough to judge on this tier (an architectural call, a correctness risk you can't fully trace) is worth spawning a nested Agent on Opus to re-judge — use your judgment, this isn't a fixed rule.
  3. ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/temper gate review mechanically checks two things: zero open findings at or above review.block-on severity (default: critical), and a recorded review completed evidence row. Record every finding as evidence: the ledger is the record of what was found; report EVERY CRITICAL and HIGH finding in your panel, never only "the top issues". You do not change code at Review (with the mod, a write outside the spec folder is refused at this stage); the person loops a finding back to Build. The loop starts the review ledger empty (the earlier findings go with the loop), so on a Review after it, record again each finding that is still there and leave out one the fix pass fixed and re-tested; the loop's reason in the report says what was found before:
    ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/temper evidence add --stage review \
      --claim '<file>:<line> <one-line finding>' --severity critical|high|medium|low \
      --confidence <0.0-1.0> --label HEURISTIC
    
    Each '<...>' holds the text as it is, with each ' in it written as '\'', so a backquote or a $ in it stays text. Never clear the ledger to pass the gate. A finding the person decides to keep is never accepted by you: accepting it (${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/temper evidence accept, which needs a reason) is their call. Use --label PROVEN only for a finding an external tool (MCP, semgrep) actually verified, per the evidence-label rules in review.md. When the review is done — even if there were NO findings — record:
    ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/temper evidence add --stage review \
      --claim "review completed" --exit 0 --label PROVEN
    
    An empty findings ledger is not a review; this row is what proves one ran.
  4. Do NOT show an AskUserQuestion gate — you run headless. Return the summary to the orchestrator; it owns the human-facing gate.

Gotchas (each one is a gate or hook that rejects the stage when missed):

  • Wait for every test run in the foreground. Never return while a run goes on in the background: the stage ends when you return.
  • An empty findings ledger is not a review. Always record the review completed row.
  • Report every CRITICAL and HIGH finding in the panel, never only the top issues.
  • Record every finding as evidence, also on a Review after a loop back (the loop empties the ledger): a finding still there is recorded again. Never clear the ledger to pass the gate.
  • Use PROVEN only for a finding an external tool verified. Everything you traced by reading is HEURISTIC.
  • Checkpoint commits land before Review, so a plain git diff shows nothing. Use base_sha when it is set.
  • Code that compiles can still call a method that does not exist or never be wired in. Compare each call against the real signature, and check that new code is reachable (imported, registered, rendered) from an existing entry point.

Read the full file on GitHub · 94 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. 5d ago Changed · +1 lines 89ab4b3e9627
  2. 22d ago Changed · +3 lines 03b934e317c4
  3. 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines 1ddb23c1b339
  4. 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines 3ee7f901058c
  5. 1mo ago Changed · +14 lines e10b533b9f56
  6. 1mo ago Changed · +22 lines 97361140eb63
  7. 2mo ago Changed · +5 lines faa86c60829a
  8. 2mo ago First seen · 42 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A a429c0840e8c

Subscribe to this mod's changes

temper-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository galando/temper (18 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,494 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 2026-08-30.

Related

temper-review compared with agents from other repositories

temper-review next to 6 agents from other repositories
ModTypeStarsLast pushLicenceScanTokensWorks with
temper-reviewgalando/temperAgent18yesterdayMITA34Claude Code
cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECCAgent298k5d agoMITA41Claude Code, Kiro
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claudeAgent4.1kyesterdayMITA68Claude Code
review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminderAgent662yesterdayMITA63Claude Code
karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMOAgent29025d agoApache-2.0A49Claude Code
atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claudeAgent1155d agoMITA169Claude Code
reviewergenkovich/sddAgent19922d agoMITA81Claude Code