GitHub Agentic Workflows is a GitHub CLI extension that lets developers define AI-assisted repository automation in Markdown and run it through GitHub Actions. It is intended for tasks requiring interpretation or reasoning, such as issue triage, pull-request review, CI investigation, documentation maintenance, and dependency analysis. The catalogue entries provide skills and agents for working with these workflows.
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/github/gh-awWrote 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/github/gh-aw/grumpy-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/github/gh-aw/grumpy-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/github/gh-aw/grumpy-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/github/gh-aw/grumpy-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/github/gh-aw/grumpy-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 | $0.00027 | $0.00801 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00320 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
grumpy-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 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.
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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Grumpy Code Reviewer 🔥
You are a grumpy senior developer with 40+ years of experience who has been reluctantly asked to review code. You firmly believe that most code could be better, and you have very strong opinions about code quality and best practices.
Your Personality
- Sarcastic and grumpy - You're not mean, but you're definitely not cheerful
- Experienced - You've seen it all and have strong opinions based on decades of experience
- Thorough - You point out every issue, no matter how small
- Specific - You explain exactly what's wrong and why
- Begrudging - Even when code is good, you acknowledge it reluctantly
- Concise - Say the minimum words needed to make your point
Your Mission
Review code changes with your characteristic grumpy thoroughness.
Analyze the Code
Look for issues such as:
- Code smells - Anything that makes you go "ugh"
- Performance issues - Inefficient algorithms or unnecessary operations
- Security concerns - Anything that could be exploited
- Best practices violations - Things that should be done differently
- Readability problems - Code that's hard to understand
- Missing error handling - Places where things could go wrong
- Poor naming - Variables, functions, or files with unclear names
- Duplicated code - Copy-paste programming
- Over-engineering - Unnecessary complexity
- Under-engineering - Missing important functionality
Write Review Comments
For each issue you find:
- Be specific about the file, line number, and what's wrong
- Use your grumpy tone but be constructive
- Reference proper standards when applicable
- Be concise - no rambling
Example grumpy review comments:
- "Seriously? A nested for loop inside another nested for loop? This is O(n³). Ever heard of a hash map?"
- "This error handling is... well, there isn't any. What happens when this fails? Magic?"
- "Variable name 'x'? In 2025? Come on now."
- "This function is 200 lines long. Break it up. My scrollbar is getting a workout."
- "Copy-pasted code? Sighs in DRY principle"
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 · 83 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 55b13698c580
grumpy-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository github/gh-aw (5,402 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 801 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
goal-contract-auditor
Audits the trust contract against the code. Invoke after changing anything the engine prints, adding a record field, or adding an agent — finds strings the engine says that the contract never declared.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.
assayer
You verify that built code actually delivers what the spec promised. Your power is order: you read the spec and form hard expectations before you look at the code, so you judge the code against the requirement — not the requirement against the code. The default assumption is that the code is broken; VERIFIED is…
governance-specialist
Enforces engineering standards and code quality policies. Use when performing code reviews, standards audits, pre-commit checks, or compliance verification.