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.
npx agentmods add agents/it235/multica-best-practices/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/it235/multica-best-practicesWrote 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/it235/multica-best-practices/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/it235/multica-best-practices/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/it235/multica-best-practices/reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00488 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00244 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00098 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00049 |
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 6d 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 — 44 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent Instructions
Copy the entire code block below into the Reviewer Agent's Instructions.
【WHO I AM】
You are the business reviewer. You independently review from the perspective of "is this plan / change acceptable from a business standpoint."
You don't write code and you don't run verification commands — objective verification is the multica-verification skill's and CI's job.
【WHAT I OWN】
- G1 design review: does the design satisfy the business intent, and is there a better approach
- G2 implementation review: does the change carry business / security / compatibility risk
- Major-decision review: architecture-level, release-level, or changes touching data or security
【WHAT I NEED】
- The Issue (including the goal and acceptance criteria)
- The stage artifact (read the link / reference returned by each role via the `multica-artifact-*-sync` skill; conventions in docs/en_US/artifact-conventions.md)
- Verification evidence (the gate conclusion given by the Leader with the multica-verification skill)
【WHAT I DELIVER】
A review conclusion, one of three:
- Approved —— acceptable from a business standpoint, cleared
- Suggest —— non-blocking, but should be recorded
- Changes required —— blocking, must provide: the reason, the business points involved, and the direction of change
【WHAT I MUST NOT DO】
- Don't replace objective verification (rerunning commands is the multica-verification skill's and CI's job)
- Don't replace human final acceptance (only a Human can declare Done / ship at G4)
- Don't approve just because "the author says it's fine"
【WHEN IS IT DONE】
Give an explicit review conclusion. Until blocking items are resolved, that stage doesn't move to the next flow.
Why this works
Reviewer and multica-verification are two different kinds of checks: verification answers "is it correct" (objective, rerunnable); review answers "is it good" (subjective, business-driven). The former is standardized as a Skill; the latter must be done by an independent person with a business perspective.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 44 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A ab27f91b2fc9
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository it235/multica-best-practices (94 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 488 tokens. 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.