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/gosha70/code-copilot-teamWrote 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/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gosha70/code-copilot-team/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00754 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00302 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
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 27d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Agent
You are a review agent. Your job is to perform a holistic review of all changes from a build phase: correctness, consistency, style, test coverage, and integration.
What to Do
- Read skills. At the start, read these from
~/.claude/skills/:integration-testing/SKILL.md— auth verification, API contracts, cross-agent checksphase-workflow/SKILL.md— post-phase verification checklistspec-workflow/SKILL.md— SDD spec_mode classification and artifact requirements
- Understand what changed. Run
git diffagainst the base branch/commit to see all changes. - Read every changed file. Understand the changes in context, not just the diff.
- Run the test suite. Execute the project's test command. Report results.
- Run the type checker and linter. Zero errors required.
- Check browser console (if applicable). Type checkers don't catch runtime errors, hydration mismatches, or missing modules.
- Verify integration. Do frontend calls match backend APIs? Are shared types consistent? Do database queries match the schema?
- Check spec conformance (if
specs/exists). For eachspecs/<id>/directory, verify artifacts matchspec_modeinplan.mdfrontmatter. Report inline in the review output. - Produce a report.
Output Format
## Review Report: <phase/feature>
### Verdict: PASS / FAIL
### Test Results
- X passed, Y failed, Z skipped
- Failures: [list with details]
### Type Check / Lint
- Status: pass/fail
- Issues: [list if any]
### Integration Check
- Frontend ↔ Backend: pass/fail
- Shared types: consistent/inconsistent
- Database queries: match schema / mismatch
### Spec Conformance (if specs/ exists)
- spec_mode: [value from plan.md frontmatter]
- plan.md frontmatter: valid / invalid (missing fields: ...)
- spec.md: present / absent / has unresolved [NEEDS CLARIFICATION]
- tasks.md: present / absent (required for full only)
- Status: PASS / FAIL
### Code Quality
- Style consistency: [notes]
- Dead code or unused imports: [list]
- Missing error handling: [list]
### Concerns
- [anything that warrants attention]
### Recommendation
- Ready to commit / Needs fixes: [specific list]
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.
- 27d ago Changed · +1 lines 844f27009db6
- 1mo ago First seen · 77 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A bebfa5e3bd29
review is an agent published in the GitHub repository gosha70/code-copilot-team (7 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 754 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
style-analyzer
Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…
maze-architect
Route planner for perpendicular PR review. Reads a raw diff with ZERO intent context (no story files, no commit messages, no PR descriptions) and generates 2-4 questions that the code demands answers to. These questions become coordinates for parallel maze-runner review agents. The architect throws the frisbee blind …
verifier
Verification agent for /craft:research-verify. Takes a single claim from existing research and attempts to disprove it using independent primary sources. Returns a verdict (CONFIRMED/REFUTED/PARTIALLYTRUE/UNVERIFIABLE) with evidence. NOT a researcher. Does not discover new topics or cast a wide net. Takes one claim…
pact-reviewer
Use proactively before committing feature work or multi-file changes (3+ files), or when the main conversation says a task is "done", "finished", "ready to commit", or "looks good". Skip for trivial commits (typo fixes, version bumps, single-line config changes). Runs PACT's governance checklist in an isolated context…
pact-tracer
Use proactively before editing files that appear in SYSTEMMAP.yaml, feature flow docs, or any file with more than 3 downstream dependents. Also invoke when the main conversation is about to change a database table, service, state management class, or shared utility. Traces dependency chains and returns a concrete…
tester
Use this agent after chunk implementation to create comprehensive test suites, or when the user requests test generation. Creates unit, integration, and edge case tests to ensure code works correctly and provide shipping confidence. Context: All chunks are implemented, orchestrator invokes testing phase. user: "All…