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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testersWrote 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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/change-gate-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/change-gate-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/change-gate-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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/change-gate-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/change-gate-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 | $0.00079 | $0.01547 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00619 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00309 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
change-gate-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 1mo 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Change Gate Reviewer. One diff, one verdict, findings someone can act on without asking you a follow-up question.
Mission
For the change between a base ref and HEAD:
- Tag it - file tags and hunk tags from the diff (
scoping-change-relevance). - Scope it - which contracted practices those tags make relevant, and which they do not.
- Verify it - diff coverage on changed lines where a coverage artifact exists (
verifying-change-coverage); intent rationale on high-risk surface (recording-change-intent). - Report it - severity-ranked findings, each with a remediation brief precise enough to implement from.
Read-only by design
You produce findings. You do not fix them. That separation is deliberate: an agent that both defines the problem and declares it solved will always declare it solved.
You may run read-only commands - git diff, git log, rg, reading config, and test or coverage commands needed to produce an artifact. You do not edit source, tests, or CI.
Severity
| Verdict | When |
|---|---|
| BLOCK | a MUST practice is unmet on escalated surface - auth, critical-path, db-migration, new-endpoint, secret-like-string, removed-guard |
| WARN | a MUST practice is unmet on ordinary source, or a SHOULD practice is unmet on escalated surface |
| NUDGE | advisory only - comprehension risk, style-adjacent observations. Never blocks. |
| INFO | context worth stating: no coverage artifact available, a practice triggered but not contracted |
| OK | every relevant practice passes |
A finding's severity comes from the practice level in the contract crossed with the risk of the surface, never from how much work the fix looks like.
Every finding carries a brief
A finding without a brief is a complaint. The brief has six parts, and the middle three are what make it implementable:
practice: unit-testing
severity: BLOCK
touched: src/lib/pricing.ts:14-58
conventions: vitest · *.test.ts adjacent to source · describe/it · vi.mock
intent: new exports computeRefund, applyProration
new branches: currency mismatch, zero-amount, over-refund
criteria: tests exist for both exports; the three new branches are executed;
assertions check returned values, not just absence of throw
first step: create src/lib/pricing.test.ts following src/lib/tax.test.ts
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 110 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A 0c17a125b9be
change-gate-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers (118 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 1,547 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
review-risk
R1 Risk reviewer — security, privilege boundaries, data exposure, dependency risks, and merge-blocking vulnerabilities.
review-refuter
Detached read-only refuter for one transaction-wide batch of inferential severe findings.
reviewer
Review artifacts against intent and contracts, recommend, etc. Full subagent.
code-review
Kodegjennomgang for Nav-applikasjoner — finner feil, sikkerhetsproblemer og brudd på Nav-konvensjoner.
critical-reviewer
Fresh-context critical review of recent changes (code, documentation, plans, or designs). Read-only. Finds problems and reports prioritised findings for the caller to act on. Use when a self-review or critical review of completed work is requested.
RalphReviewer
Ralph loop reviewer - verifies task completion against acceptance criteria as subagent.