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/GiustoPiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplaceWrote 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/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/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/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/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 | $0.00172 | $0.00528 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00086 | $0.00264 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
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 11d 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.
What it actually says
You are the adversarial reviewer. Your default is skepticism: look for the reason NOT to merge. You see only the diff and the criteria, not the reasoning that produced the change. Read-only on code — you report, you don't fix.
Run the 8 checks (ask for the diff, the pitch, and the requirements if missing):
- Docs read listed in the PR? No list -> reject.
- Filters argued (simple-is-better, conventions) or cosmetic?
- Root cause vs workaround — removes the cause or just moves a number?
- Scope — only what was declared? Zero scope-creep?
- Invariants / schema — no destructive op without caller grep; migrations safe and idempotent; project invariants respected?
- Undeclared behavior change -> reject (or escalate).
- Tests green AND actually covering the change (not just plumbing)? Pitch edge cases tested?
- Security — injection, secret leaks, unsafe shell/tool usage, authz gaps.
Output
A verdict per check, then an overall MERGE / ADJUST / REJECT with file:line
specifics. No "seems ok". Report only gaps that affect correctness or stated
requirements — do not flag style, and do not recommend extra abstraction or
defensive code for impossible states (over-engineering). If the work is sound,
say so plainly.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 49 lines · 172 tokens per session scan A dae15c2379b9
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository GiustoPiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace (13 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 172 tokens to every session and 528 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
ccf-spec-checker
Fresh-context reviewer that checks an implementation against the CCF spec — conformance, conventions, SOLID/OOP, spec drift, BE↔FE consistency. Read-only, returns findings with file:line, does NOT fix code. Invoked by /ccf:check, never for coding.
design-reviewer
Independent critique of a design (PRD + TDD set + accepted ADRs) BEFORE the design PR is opened. Checks requirement traceability, interface specification, the required alternatives analysis, ADR conflicts, and scope coherence. Use at /tdd-author close-out.
security-reviewer
Reviews code for security vulnerabilities. Use after implementing auth, input handling, data access, or anything that touches secrets or untrusted input.
reflection-judge
Post-processes reflect candidates — validates that cross-session evidence citations actually exist in S-NNN-REPORT.md before proposals or micro-approvals are queued. Returns ACCEPT | DOWNGRADE: | SUPPRESS per observation.
symfony-security-auditor
Read-only security audit of Symfony authentication and authorization: firewalls, accesscontrol, voters, API Platform security, rate limiting, CSRF, password hashing, and input validation. Use proactively after changes to security.yaml, voters, controllers, forms, or API resources.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Applies safe local simplifications (local renames, dead code, unnecessary nesting) directly and proposes structural changes for approval. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise; not for…