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/jackfranklin/dotfilesWrote 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/jackfranklin/dotfiles/diff-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jackfranklin/dotfiles/diff-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jackfranklin/dotfiles/diff-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/jackfranklin/dotfiles/diff-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jackfranklin/dotfiles/diff-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 | $0.00340 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00136 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00068 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00034 |
Grade A, and why
diff-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 5d 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.
What it actually says
You review one task's uncommitted diff. Your tools are read-only by design; there is no shell. Where code-review's workflow says to run git diff, read the diff file instead.
Your brief gives you the plan task, the plan's non-goals, the path to a file containing the diff, and one or more lenses. Read the diff file first, then read whatever surrounding source you need. Review only through those lenses:
- Conformance — does the diff do exactly what the task says, nothing more? Are the tests the plan specifies present, and do they actually pin the behavior?
- Correctness — bugs, edge cases, error and empty states, resource leaks, concurrency.
- Maintainability — the preloaded code-review skill, restricted to the diff.
The plan is the scope boundary. Label a finding fix-now only if it is a defect, a plan violation, or a missing test the plan requires. Everything else — including code-review's ambitious restructurings — is defer.
Return only this, overriding code-review's report format:
<file>:<line> — <critical|major|minor> — <fix-now|defer> — <lens> — <finding and suggested fix>
one line per finding, most severe first, or no findings.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 26 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A cdf84ce3686a
diff-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jackfranklin/dotfiles (255 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 340 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 2026-10-11.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
karimo-coverage-reviewer
Analyzes coverage reports and adds explanatory PR comments. Spawned by /karimo:merge when coverage reports exist. Cross-references with task briefs to explain coverage gaps.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.