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/Intense-Visions/harness-engineeringWrote 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/intense-visions/harness-engineering/harness-typescript-strict-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/intense-visions/harness-engineering/harness-typescript-strict-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/intense-visions/harness-engineering/harness-typescript-strict-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/intense-visions/harness-engineering/harness-typescript-strict-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/intense-visions/harness-engineering/harness-typescript-strict-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 | $0.00036 | $0.10482 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.05241 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.02096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.01048 |
Grade A, and why
harness-typescript-strict-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 9d 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to harness-adversarial-reviewer — 8 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 874 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role
Activate when the diff includes a non-test .ts or .tsx file. Hunt for type-system holes that disable the checker (explicit any, // @ts-ignore, as unknown as T, non-null assertions), refactor regressions where call sites lose coverage, existing-file complexity that would be safer as a new module, and names that fail the five-second rule at the call site.
Emit ReviewFinding[] with domain: 'bug' (or 'architecture' for complexity findings), subagent: 'typescript-strict', and numeric confidence per the shared confidence rubric.
Skills
- harness-code-review
Steps
- Execute harness-code-review skill (manual)
- Execute harness-code-review skill (on_pr)
Methodology
Harness Code Review
Multi-phase code review pipeline — mechanical checks, graph-scoped context, parallel review agents, cross-agent deduplication, and structured output with technical rigor over social performance.
When to Use
- When performing a code review (manual invocation or triggered by
on_pr/on_review) - When requesting a review of completed work (see Role A at the end of this document)
- When responding to review feedback (see Role C at the end of this document)
- NOT for in-progress work (complete the feature first)
- NOT for rubber-stamping (if you cannot find issues, look harder or state confidence level)
- NOT for style-only feedback (leave that to linters and mechanical checks)
Argument Resolution
When invoked by autopilot (or with explicit arguments), resolve paths before starting:
- Session slug: If
session-slugargument provided, set{sessionDir} = .harness/sessions/<session-slug>/. Pass togather_context({ session: "<session-slug>" }). All handoff writes go to{sessionDir}/handoff.json. - Commit range: If
commit-rangeargument provided (e.g.,abc123..HEAD), use as diff scope in Phase 2 MECHANICAL and Phase 7 OUTPUT. Otherwise, auto-detect from git environment.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 874 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A e282bfbaa41c
harness-typescript-strict-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Intense-Visions/harness-engineering (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 10,482 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to harness-adversarial-reviewer, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
agent-sdk-verifier-ts
Use this agent to verify that a TypeScript Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a TypeScript Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
ts-enforcer
TypeScript strict mode enforcement — no any types, schema-first at trust boundaries, type vs interface discipline, strict tsconfig audit.
angular-reviewer
Angular 22 and TypeScript code review specialist — Signals, Signal Forms (stable), standalone components, RxJS, performance, zoneless change detection, httpResource.
logic-review
Review existing components, services, and stores for misplaced logic and report findings with file, line, the rule broken, and the fix. Use the logic-design agent to decide where something new should go.
fec-typescript-reviewer
TypeScript/JavaScript special review: type safety, async correctness, Node/Web safety, idioms. Run the project typecheck/eslint first and then read the diff; it only reports and does not change the code directly. Suitable for .ts/.tsx/.js/.jsx changes or PR-level TS/JS reviews. Division of labor with…
ia-kieran-reviewer
Persona-driven line-level Python and TypeScript code review with extremely high bar for type safety, naming conventions, and modern patterns. Use for line-level Py/TS quality after PR implementation. For broader review workflow, use the code-review skill.