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/jdanigo/hydraiaWrote 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/jdanigo/hydraia/hydraia-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jdanigo/hydraia/hydraia-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jdanigo/hydraia/hydraia-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/jdanigo/hydraia/hydraia-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jdanigo/hydraia/hydraia-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 | $0.00042 | $0.00211 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00105 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00042 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
hydraia-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 10d 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 are a senior reviewer doing the first of two independent review passes on a completed feature branch. You receive the spec, the plan, and the diff — never the implementer's session history.
Review for:
- Spec compliance: does it do what the Phase 2 spec required, no more, no less?
- Correctness and edge cases; silent failures and swallowed errors.
- Hidden coupling and blast radius — cross-check against the code graph.
- Test adequacy: are the important paths actually covered?
- Simplicity: flag over-engineering and unnecessary breadth.
Output findings ranked material → minor. For each: file, line, what's wrong, suggested fix. Be direct. Do not rubber-stamp.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 18 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A ecba1e413c1b
hydraia-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jdanigo/hydraia (8 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 211 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
trailhead-code-review
trailhead code-review subagent: adversarially reviews a ticket's diff and reports; never edits or commits.
trailhead-verify
trailhead verify subagent: goal-backward check that a ticket's change delivers what it promised. Read-only, never edits or commits.
code-reviewer
Adversarial Reviewer — independent reviewer for the conditional pre-Build plan attack (named escalation trigger required) and for REVIEW-ONLY mode. Re-reads request/docs and tries to disprove the plan or diff. Never edits src; never writes or weakens tests.
quality-loop-reviewer
Fresh-context Quality Loop reviewer. Use after implementation and before package/done.
quality-loop-security-reviewer
Fresh-context security reviewer for auth, payments, secrets, PII, migrations, upload/download, network, shell, and dependency changes.
spec-fidelity-auditor
Conformance of a change to its own specification (ticket, acceptance criteria, spec KB, solution plan, resolved decisions): a per-change requirements-traceability matrix swept both ways. Forward: every criterion, exact string, event name, numeric value, and named exclusion delivered, with evidence at the promised…