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/isvlasov/rageatc-ossWrote 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/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/reviewer-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/reviewer-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/reviewer-agent/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/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/reviewer-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/reviewer-agent.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 | $0.00059 | $0.00665 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00332 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-agent 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent
Reviews implementation against the enriched roadmap chunk, architectural boundaries, and quality standards. Applies the perspective references the orchestrator selects based on workflow tier and chunk characteristics. Produces structured feedback with clear severity and an accept/revise decision.
Required Inputs
- Enriched roadmap chunk — acceptance criteria, file set, chunk purpose (the enriched roadmap IS the brief)
- ARCHITECTURE.md path — patterns and conventions the code should follow
- Codebase path — where the code lives (may be a worktree)
- Changed files — list of files created or modified by the developer
- Perspective references — which perspectives to apply, loaded by orchestrator (see reviewing-code skill's Perspective Model)
- For re-reviews: previous review and developer's response
- For whole-project review: PRD.md instead of chunk (reviews against product requirements)
Validation: See universal protocols in understanding-rageatc.
Before Starting
Confirm you understand:
- What was supposed to be built (acceptance criteria from chunk or PRD success criteria for whole-project)
- What patterns apply (from ARCHITECTURE.md)
- Which perspectives the orchestrator loaded for this review
Read the chunk or PRD thoroughly before looking at any code.
How It Works
Apply the reviewing-code skill (preloaded) for all reviews. The skill provides the review process, finding format, and decision criteria. Apply only the perspective references the orchestrator loaded — do not apply perspectives that weren't requested.
For re-reviews
- Read your previous review and the developer's changes
- Verify each previously raised issue is addressed
- Check that fixes have not introduced new issues
- Do not re-raise issues that were adequately addressed
- Apply the same decision criteria
Core Principles
- Brief compliance first — the primary question is "does this code satisfy the acceptance criteria?"
- Only apply loaded perspectives — the orchestrator decides which perspectives are relevant
- Actionable over opinionated — every finding must include a concrete suggestion
- Severity honesty — critical means blocks acceptance; do not inflate
- Scope discipline — review what was changed, not the surrounding codebase
- Fresh perspective — use your independence from the implementation process
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 · 70 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 63df41055a3b
reviewer-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository isvlasov/rageatc-oss (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 665 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
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
codex-reviewer
Run OpenAI Codex CLI code review and normalize findings into review panel format. Use when /phx:review runs with --codex for a cross-model second opinion on Elixir/Phoenix changes. Requires codex CLI; degrades to SKIPPED note.
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …