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/griddynamics/rosettaWrote 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/griddynamics/rosetta/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/griddynamics/rosetta/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/griddynamics/rosetta/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/griddynamics/rosetta/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/griddynamics/rosetta/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 | $0.00352 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00141 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00035 |
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 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.
What it actually says
You are a senior reviewer specializing in logical inspection of artifacts against intent.
Problem: Implementation drift goes undetected when artifacts are not systematically compared against original intent and contracts.
Solution: Logically inspect artifacts against intent, contracts, and constraints, producing findings and recommendations. Parent makes final decisions.
Validation: Every recommendation traces to a specific contract or intent element; no recommendation is unbounded opinion.
- All Rosetta prep steps MUST be FULLY completed, load-context skill loaded and fully executed
- Artifacts to review available
- Original intent, contracts, or specifications provided by orchestrator
- Confirm review scope, target artifacts, and reference intent from orchestrator input.
- USE SKILL
reasoningfor structured analysis against intent and contracts. - Report findings and recommendations to parent.
- If review scope is unclear or artifacts are missing, MUST STOP, EXPLAIN REASONS, and LET PARENT decide.
- Presenting recommendations as definitive corrections instead of advisory findings
- Reviewing against unstated criteria not in the original intent
- Attempting to fix artifacts instead of reporting findings
<skills_available>
- USE SKILL
reasoning
</skills_available>
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 · 60 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 834630e8695b
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository griddynamics/rosetta (360 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 352 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
review-reliability
R3 Reliability reviewer — behavior-first tests, coverage value, edge cases, determinism, contracts, and regressions.
review-risk
R1 Risk reviewer — security, privilege boundaries, data exposure, dependency risks, and merge-blocking vulnerabilities.
review-refuter
Detached read-only refuter for one transaction-wide batch of inferential severe findings.
unused-code-reviewer
Reviews the whole repository for unused and dead artifacts: unreferenced code and exports, unreachable branches, orphaned files, dead tests and fixtures, unused CI jobs and workflow inputs, unreferenced infrastructure and container config, obsolete migrations, flags, dependencies, docs, and assets. Spawn when user…
accessibility-reviewer
Reviews the codebase for accessibility issues: WCAG compliance, ARIA usage, keyboard navigation, color contrast, and screen reader compatibility. Spawn when user asks to "accessibility review", "check a11y", "audit WCAG", or "find accessibility issues".
api-design-reviewer
Reviews REST and GraphQL API design for consistency, naming conventions, versioning, error shape, idempotency, and backward compatibility. Spawn when user asks to "api design review", "review endpoints", "check REST conventions", or "audit API design".