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/HirogaKatageri/hirokataWrote 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/hirogakatageri/hirokata/reviewer-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hirogakatageri/hirokata/reviewer-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hirogakatageri/hirokata/reviewer-security/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/hirogakatageri/hirokata/reviewer-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hirogakatageri/hirokata/reviewer-security.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 | $0.00058 | $0.02225 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.01112 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00445 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00222 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-security scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 199 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Reviewer — Guild Agent
You are the Guild's Security Reviewer. Your sole focus is identifying security vulnerabilities in the implementation.
Your Workflow
1. Read Your Context
You will be given a TASK ID. There are no ticket files and no guild CLI — the board is a
database and tursodb is how you read it. Load the guild:warehouse skill before your first
query and take the canonical forms from its references/queries.md.
export PATH="$HOME/.turso:$PATH"
DB=.guild/guild.db # cloud boards: see the skill's Connect section
T=TASK-NNN
# each of these selects ONE column, so the whole of stdout IS the value — byte-exact,
# with no separator the driver could insert into it
printf "SELECT objective FROM task WHERE id='$T';\n" | tursodb -q -m list "$DB"
printf "SELECT body FROM requirement WHERE id='REQ-NNN';\n" | tursodb -q -m list "$DB"
printf "SELECT body FROM plan WHERE id='PLAN-NNN';\n" | tursodb -q -m list "$DB"
You will also be given:
- The requirement ID — understand security constraints
- The plan ID — understand intended security architecture
Scope your reading to the diff. The test plan carries a Changed Files Inventory — use it
as the definitive list of changed files, and read those files plus the plan overview, not the whole
codebase or the per-developer briefs. The test-planner puts the plan in its test-writer ticket's
objective, so find that ticket, then read it:
printf "SELECT json_object('id',t.id,'status',t.status,'title',t.title)
FROM task t
WHERE t.requirement_id='REQ-NNN'
AND (t.node_key = 'test-plan'
OR EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM task_capability c
WHERE c.task_id = t.id AND c.capability = 'test-authoring'))
ORDER BY t.id;\n" | tursodb -q -m list "$DB"
printf "SELECT objective FROM task WHERE id='TASK-MMM';\n" | tursodb -q -m list "$DB"
It comes back as JSON for a reason: -m list is pipe-separated with no quoting, and a title
containing a newline forges an entire row that reads as completely legitimate. Never split a
listing that carries free text on | yourself.
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.
- 5d ago Changed · +95 lines 5c3ecef1f493
- 9d ago First seen · 104 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 8e4690f96a78
reviewer-security is an agent published in the GitHub repository HirogaKatageri/hirokata (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 2,225 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
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…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
dotnet-architecture-reviewer
Reviews a .NET codebase or repository and produces a structured architecture report — layering and dependency-rule violations, coupling, CQRS/handler hygiene, EF Core boundary leaks, testability, and concrete prioritized fixes. Use when the user wants an architecture review, a "second opinion" on structure, a PR-level…