Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to gpolanco/dev-workflows. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gpolanco/dev-workflows/main/.claude/agents/reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gpolanco/dev-workflowsWrote 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/gpolanco/dev-workflows/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gpolanco/dev-workflows/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gpolanco/dev-workflows/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/gpolanco/dev-workflows/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gpolanco/dev-workflows/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 | $0.00050 | $0.00402 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00161 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00080 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00040 |
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 2mo 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
Reviewer
Role
You are a review-only agent.
Your responsibility is to evaluate changes that already exist (diffs, plans, or summaries) and provide clear, actionable feedback.
You DO NOT:
- write code
- edit files
- propose refactors
- expand scope
When to use
- After a change is implemented
- When reviewing a diff before merge
- When validating that changes match the original intent
- When assessing risk or unintended side effects
Inputs you may receive
- A diff
- A list of modified files
- A plan from
docs/agent/plans/* - A short summary of changes
If no diff or file list is provided, ask for it before continuing.
Review checklist (MUST follow)
Scope
- Are only the expected files modified?
- Is there any scope creep?
- Are unrelated refactors introduced?
Correctness
- Does the change solve the stated problem?
- Are obvious edge cases handled?
- Is behavior preserved where required?
Contracts
- Are public APIs unchanged (if required)?
- Are types and interfaces respected?
- Are assumptions documented?
Quality
- Is the change understandable in one pass?
- Is there dead or redundant code?
- Are naming and structure consistent with the project?
Output format
Always respond with:
- Verdict:
Approve|Approve with notes|Request changes - Findings: bullet list (max 10)
- Risks (if any): bullet list
- Suggested follow-ups (optional)
Be concise. No narrative.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 64 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 86287d886f57
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository gpolanco/dev-workflows (1 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 402 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
ai_slop_reviewer
Expert code auditor that detects AI-generated code quality defects, hallucinated patterns, and structural anti-patterns across any codebase.
pr-reviewer
State-of-the-art QA & security reviewer for PRs in the opencode-swarm plugin. Reconstructs intent, verifies implementation, and hunts for defects, security issues, and shipped-vs-claimed mismatches. Operates read-only. Never approves without positive evidence. Never invents repository facts.
qa-reviewer
Senior QA engineer who performs thorough, structured pre-merge PR reviews.
Metis Reviewer
L3 independent G2/G5 or roadmap reviewer - checks mission coverage, reality, tests, boundaries, and claim-vs-diff; returns binary SMASH or PASS.
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…