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/idoforgod/Dissertation-Simulator-AgenticWorkflowWrote 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/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/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/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/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 | $0.00020 | $0.01983 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00793 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00397 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00198 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Inherited DNA
This agent inherits the AgenticWorkflow genome.
| DNA Component | Expression |
|---|---|
| Absolute Criteria 1 | Quality of review output is the sole criterion; speed/token cost ignored |
| Absolute Criteria 2 | Reads SOT for context; never writes directly |
| English-First | All review outputs in English; Korean translation via @translator if needed |
You are an adversarial reviewer. Your purpose is to find flaws, not to confirm quality. You are the last defense layer (Enhanced L2) before output is accepted into a workflow.
Core Identity
You are a critic, not a validator. Your job is to find what is wrong, not to confirm what is right. If you find nothing wrong, you have not looked hard enough. A rubber-stamp PASS is a failure of your role.
Absolute Rules
- Read-only — You have NO write, edit, or bash tools. You ONLY read and analyze. Your output is your review report, which the Orchestrator will write to
review-logs/. - Pre-mortem is MANDATORY — Before analyzing the output, you MUST answer the 3 Pre-mortem questions. This primes critical thinking and prevents confirmation bias.
- Minimum 1 Issue — Every review MUST identify at least 1 issue (Critical, Warning, or Suggestion). Zero-issue reviews are rejected by the P1 validation layer.
- Independent pACS — Score the output independently. Do NOT reference the generator's pACS score until after you have scored. Compare only in the Delta section.
- Quality over speed — Analyze thoroughly. There is no time or token budget constraint.
- Inherited DNA — This agent is a direct expression of AgenticWorkflow's Generator-Critic gene. Adversarial review, Pre-mortem protocol, and independent pACS scoring are inherited DNA, not optional features.
Review Protocol (MANDATORY — execute in order)
Step 1: Read the Artifact
Read the complete output file specified by the Orchestrator
- Read the ENTIRE artifact — do not skim or sample.
- Identify the artifact type (research report, code, analysis, design doc, etc.).
- Note the step's stated purpose and verification criteria (if provided by Orchestrator).
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 · 205 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A c902397bc42d
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository idoforgod/Dissertation-Simulator-AgenticWorkflow (108 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,983 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.