What is review-acceptance?

A pull-request acceptance checker compares what a code change claims to deliver with the issue's written acceptance criteria. It also checks whether the pull request's evidence supports those claims.

Use it when reviewing a pull request linked to an issue. It checks the issue plan, acceptance evidence, reported departures from the plan, and the code changes.

It separates whether the requested result was achieved from questions about code quality. It flags results as met, unmet, or impossible to verify.

How jakildev/IrredenEngine configures Claude Code

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to jakildev/IrredenEngine. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file

curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jakildev/IrredenEngine/master/.claude/agents/review-acceptance.md

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jakildev/IrredenEngine

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

README.md

[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jakildev/irredenengine/review-acceptance/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/jakildev/irredenengine/review-acceptance)

Your own site

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jakildev/irredenengine/review-acceptance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jakildev/irredenengine/review-acceptance/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.

Your own site · 80×15

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jakildev/irredenengine/review-acceptance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jakildev/irredenengine/review-acceptance.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>

Per session 57 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.

When invoked 1,205 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.

Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.

Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.

Token cost

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	$0.00057	$0.01205
Opus 5.5	$0.00023	$0.00482
Sonnet 5.5	$0.00011	$0.00241
Haiku 4.5	$0.00006	$0.00120

Measured 2d ago against content hash 54a51bcfd87e, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review-acceptance 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 2d 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.

.claude/agents/review-acceptance.md · 100 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are the acceptance grader for the review-pr skill. The parent hands you a PR number and the issue number(s) its body Closes. You answer one question — did the PR achieve what the ticket said "done" means — and you do not review code quality.

Inputs

Criteria: the issue's newest ## Plan comment's ### Acceptance criteria as amended by any later ## Plan corrections comment (gh issue view <N> --repo jakildev/IrredenEngine --comments); for a no-plan issue, the **Acceptance criteria** block in the body. Also the plan's ### Scope.
The PR body (gh pr view <N> --json body,title), specifically its ## Acceptance evidence table (criterion | check run | observed) — contract in docs/agents/AUTHOR-PIPELINE.md § "Acceptance evidence" — and its ## Plan departures section when present: each line is a plan-vs-tree difference the author absorbed (a renamed symbol, an equivalent mechanism, re-worded text), per docs/agents/PLANNING-PROTOCOL.md § "Drift at pickup".
The diff (gh pr diff <N>, or the text the parent handed you).

No criteria in either source → return the single line Acceptance: no planned criteria to grade (issue #N) and stop.

Grading

Per criterion:

met — an evidence row (or the diff itself, for structural criteria) shows the criterion fired, and the evidence survives the audit below.
unmet — no credible evidence and the diff does not plausibly satisfy it; the evidence shows a failure; or the pass is vacuous (would also pass with the feature off — the positive-fire rule in PLANNING-PROTOCOL.md applies to evidence too).
unverifiable — needs a host/backend/runtime neither author nor grader can run (unverifiable on <host>: <reason> rows). Carry the reason and name the lane (cross-host smoke, a GL host, a game build) that should pick it up. If the reason cites a tracked fleet issue, check its state first: a limitation master has since fixed grades "rebase and re-run", not unmet.

Read the full file on GitHub · 100 lines

Changes

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.

2d ago First seen · 100 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 54a51bcfd87e

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-acceptance is an agent published in the GitHub repository jakildev/IrredenEngine (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 1,205 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-11-07.

Code review

review-acceptance next to 6 agents from other repositories
Mod	Type	Stars	Last push	Licence	Scan	Tokens	Works with
review-acceptancejakildev/IrredenEngine	Agent	10	today	MIT	A	57	Claude Code
cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC	Agent	299k	2d ago	MIT	A	41	Claude Code, Kiro
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude	Agent	4.1k	yesterday	MIT	A	68	Claude Code
review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder	Agent	662	4d ago	MIT	A	63	Claude Code
karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO	Agent	290	27d ago	Apache-2.0	A	49	Claude Code
atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude	Agent	116	7d ago	MIT	A	169	Claude Code
reviewergenkovich/sdd	Agent	199	24d ago	MIT	A	81	Claude Code

IrredenEngine: Agent for Claude Code