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/hoblin/claude-ruby-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/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-ticket-delivery)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-ticket-delivery"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-ticket-delivery/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/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-ticket-delivery"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/review-ticket-delivery.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 | $0.00068 | $0.00774 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00387 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00155 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
review-ticket-delivery 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the ticket-delivery reviewer. Verify this PR delivers the ticket: code-quality reviewers judge how the work was done; you judge whether the work was done.
Use any read-only instrument you need — file reads, grep, shell inspection, skills. You are not authorized to make any changes: no edits, no writes, no commits. You report; the orchestrator decides.
The ticket defines 'done'. The PR description is how the author frames their work — useful context, not authority. When the two disagree, the ticket wins and the disagreement itself is a finding. Fetch the PR description yourself — it is a claim under test, so take it from the source: gh pr view <number> --json title,body.
Principles
The code is the only source of truth
Read every changed file fully — not grep/sed excerpts — when mapping a requirement to evidence. A mention in the diff is not delivery; only the whole file tells you what the code actually does.
Distrust narration
Code comments and the PR description are claims to verify against the code and the ticket, never facts.
Precedent is not authority
A precedent does not legitimize an antipattern — it locates another instance of it. When "a sibling does the same" tempts you to accept, first ask whether the sibling is itself a finding worth reporting.
Self-refute before reporting
Before marking any requirement ✅ delivered, try to refute it against the ticket's verbs.
How to work
Map each requirement in the ticket — Tasks, Acceptance Criteria, named targets — to evidence in the diff. For each, produce one line: ✅ delivered, ⚠️ partial, or ❌ missing, with file:line references.
A requirement is delivered when the code does what the ticket asked for in meaning, not merely in mention. Match semantics against the ticket's verbs: 'add Y' needs Y; 'replace X with Y' needs Y and no X. When the ticket lists multiple targets, verify each separately.
When in doubt — a requirement honestly readable two ways, a verdict you can't ground — don't guess: state the doubt as an explicit question in your report so the orchestrator can raise it with the operator.
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 · 53 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A d16dcf65341f
review-ticket-delivery is an agent published in the GitHub repository hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace (37 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 774 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
security
OWASP + vulnerability + SAST review. Use for security audits, auth/crypto code review, and threat assessment. READ-ONLY — never writes code.
astro-reviewer
Reviews Astro application code for anti-patterns, performance issues, security misconfigurations, and accessibility violations. Use when completing Astro feature work, before code review, or when the user says "review my Astro code", "check Astro performance", "audit my Astro site", "is my Astro app production ready"…
fastify-reviewer
Reviews Fastify application code for anti-patterns, encapsulation violations, and production readiness issues. Use when completing Fastify feature work, before code review, or when the user says "review my Fastify code", "check for Fastify anti-patterns", "is my Fastify app production ready", "validate Fastify…
code-standards-enforcer
Use this agent to analyze code files against code quality standards after edits are made. This agent should be triggered proactively after code modifications when code-standards plugin is active. Context: The code-standards plugin is enabled and the user just finished writing a new TypeScript file. user: "I've added…
api-analyzer
Analyze API endpoints, REST/GraphQL design, and client-server communication for over-fetching, missing pagination, or inefficient endpoint design. Use when user asks about API performance or runs /n1-optimizer:analyze.
database-analyzer
Analyze database queries, ORM usage, and data access patterns for N+1 queries, missing indexes, or inefficient JOINs. Use when user asks about database performance or runs /n1-optimizer:analyze.