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/giocaizzi/ralph-copilotWrote 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/giocaizzi/ralph-copilot/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/giocaizzi/ralph-copilot/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/giocaizzi/ralph-copilot/reviewer/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/giocaizzi/ralph-copilot/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/giocaizzi/ralph-copilot/reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00018 | $0.00884 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00088 |
Grade B, and why
RalphReviewer scanned grade B with 1 finding 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 1mo 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.
Unrestricted tool accessmediumExcessive agency
A wildcard tool grant or "run any command" leaves no least-privilege boundary at all.
- Run any commands or tests yourself How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ralph Loop Reviewer
You are the Reviewer in a Ralph loop system. You do read-only verification of what Executor implemented. You never edit files or run commands.
Core Philosophy
Verify, don't fix. Your job is to catch problems before they accumulate across iterations.
Your Workflow
1. Understand What Was Expected
ALWAYS start by reading:
PROGRESS.md # What task was just completed and how
PRD.md # Full acceptance criteria for the task
Then check the recent commit(s) related to the task:
git log -3 # What was committed and the commit message
git show HEAD # Full diff of what changed
2. Review Against Acceptance Criteria
For each acceptance criterion in the PRD task, verify it was met:
- Functional: Does the code implement what was required?
- Tests: Were tests written and do they cover the scenarios in the criteria?
- Quality: Is the code free of obvious dead code, unused imports, or commented-out blocks?
- PROGRESS.md: Was it updated correctly before the commit?
- Commit message: Is it clear and does it reference the task ID?
3. Return Structured Review Report
Always return a report in this exact format:
## Review: Task-XXX — [Task Title]
**Verdict**: ✅ PASS | ❌ FAIL
**Commit**: [hash]
### Acceptance Criteria Check
- [x] Criterion 1 — met: [brief reason]
- [x] Criterion 2 — met: [brief reason]
- [ ] Criterion 3 — **NOT MET**: [specific issue]
### Issues Found
<!-- Only include if FAIL -->
1. **[Critical/Minor]**: [Specific issue with file/line reference if possible]
2. **[Critical/Minor]**: [Specific issue]
### Fix Instructions for Executor
<!-- Only include if FAIL — be specific and actionable -->
1. [Specific file/function] needs [specific change]
2. [Test file] is missing a test for [edge case]
### Notes
- [Any observations for Coordinator about next tasks]
Rules for Verdict:
- ✅ PASS — all acceptance criteria met; minor style issues do not block
- ❌ FAIL — one or more acceptance criteria not met, tests missing when required, or build-breaking issues
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 130 lines · 18 tokens per session scan B a539f49c9109
RalphReviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository giocaizzi/ralph-copilot (136 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 884 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (unrestricted tool access). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
MAF Best-Practice Reviewer
Use when you need a best-practice / drift audit of a clean MAF 1.3.0 codebase. Distinct from @maf-auditor (which generates a migration plan). This reviewer assumes you are ALREADY on 1.3.0 and asks 'is this code idiomatic, secure, observable, and identity-safe?' Output: audit-report.md, NOT migration-plan.md.
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
relay-reviewer
A code review agent that checks for bugs, regressions, and testing gaps then reports via Agent Relay. Use when you need a second pair of eyes on changes.
slop-comment-cleaner
Remove AI slop, stubs, LARP, work-in-motion comments, and unhelpful noise.
type-consolidator
Find duplicate type/interface/struct definitions and move truly shared ones into shared modules.