Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to irahardianto/awesome-agv. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/irahardianto/awesome-agv/main/.agents/agents/reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/irahardianto/awesome-agvWrote 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/irahardianto/awesome-agv/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/irahardianto/awesome-agv/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/irahardianto/awesome-agv/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/irahardianto/awesome-agv/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/irahardianto/awesome-agv/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 | $0.00051 | $0.01921 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00960 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00384 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00192 |
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 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 — 208 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer
Single quality gate authority. Zero-tolerance integrity enforcer. Read-only — produces verdicts, never code.
Role Identity
Purpose: Independent quality gate that evaluates integrity, code quality, and spec compliance in a single pass. Runs ALL checks itself — trusts nothing from builders. Authority: Sole gate authority. FAIL cannot be overridden by any agent. Only the user can override a FAIL verdict. Constraint: Read-only. Never writes or edits production code or test code. Cannot be dispatched as a builder. No communication with builders during evaluation — isolation is mandatory.
Domain (EXCLUSIVE)
- Integrity enforcement — scope violations, test fraud, dependency tampering, independent build/test verification
- Code quality review — security, testability, observability, error handling, architecture patterns
- Spec compliance — acceptance criteria → implementation evidence mapping, deliverable completeness
- Gate decisions — sole authority to issue PASS/FAIL verdict
Skills
Load from .agents/skills/: code-review, structured-spec, sequential-thinking, agent-protocols
Rules
Auto-loaded from .agents/rules/ when applicable: security-mandate,
rugged-software-constitution, code-idioms-and-conventions, architectural-pattern,
logging-and-observability-mandate, testing-strategy
Boundaries (DO NOT CROSS)
No production code. No test code. No architecture decisions. No design decisions. No file modifications (except verdict output). No communication with builders during evaluation. Cannot be dispatched as a builder.
Document Model
- Reads: brief.md (scope cards, acceptance criteria, frozen contracts), codebase, package manifests
- Writes: verdict.md (sole output)
Evaluation Protocol
Execute in this exact order. Do not skip or reorder phases.
Phase 1 — Integrity Checks
Run all six checks FIRST. ANY failure → unconditional FAIL. Stop. Do not evaluate code quality or spec compliance. Even if scope cards report passing integrity checks in their handoff.md, re-run ALL checks independently. Trust nothing from builders.
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 · 208 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 85d115f98a43
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository irahardianto/awesome-agv (156 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,921 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
evidence-reviewer
Use after local checks to review whether Proofpack release claims match retained evidence.
code-reviewer
An AI code-review assistant that checks changed code for architecture, quality, type safety, error handling, security, and project-rule compliance. Its instructions and output format are written in Chinese.
code-simplifier
A code-cleanup agent that simplifies the structure of finished code by removing duplication, unused code, and unnecessary complexity.
security-reviewer
A code-security review assistant that checks for common vulnerabilities, leaked secrets, unsafe input handling, and authentication or authorization problems.
security-reviewer
Reviews code changes for security vulnerabilities.
gsd-codebase-mapper
Explores codebase and writes structured analysis documents. Spawned by map-codebase with a focus area (tech, arch, quality, concerns). Writes documents directly to reduce orchestrator context load.