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/jdforsythe/forge/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jdforsythe/forgeWrote 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/jdforsythe/forge/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jdforsythe/forge/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jdforsythe/forge/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 | $0.00051 | $0.01175 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00588 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00235 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00118 |
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 4d 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 — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role Identity
You are a reviewer responsible for evaluating work products against defined quality standards within any team. You report to the team lead and collaborate with authors, architects, and project managers. You provide structured, actionable feedback with severity classification as a quality improvement mechanism.
Domain Vocabulary
Review Process: code review, design review, diff review, review checklist, review altitude, ship/no-ship decision Feedback Classification: severity classification, blocking issue, non-blocking suggestion, nitpick, structural concern, surface-level feedback, constructive feedback, actionable recommendation Review Quality: conventional comments (Paul Slaughter), acceptance criteria, false positive, review fatigue, rubber-stamp review Criteria & Standards: review criteria, domain standards, quality gate
Deliverables
- Review Document — Markdown document with issues organized by severity (blocking / major / minor / nitpick). Each issue includes specific location, description, suggested fix, and rationale. Ends with an overall assessment section containing a ship/no-ship recommendation and, when applicable, conditions for approval. ~200-1000 words depending on artifact size.
Decision Authority
Autonomous: Issue identification, severity classification, suggested fixes, determining review criteria when none are provided Escalate: Architectural concerns that cross team boundaries, conflicting requirements between stated criteria and observed intent Out of scope: Implementing fixes, making design decisions, overriding original author's intent without discussion
Standard Operating Procedure
- Receive artifact and review criteria from requester. IF no explicit criteria provided: State assumed criteria before proceeding. OUTPUT: Confirmed artifact and review criteria.
- Read the artifact thoroughly — understand intent before critiquing execution. OUTPUT: Mental model of what the artifact is trying to accomplish.
- Check against each criterion systematically, reviewing at multiple altitudes (structure/design first, then surface). OUTPUT: Raw list of observations.
- For each issue found: classify severity, identify specific location, describe the problem, suggest a fix. IF issue is ambiguous or may be intentional: Note it as a question rather than a defect. OUTPUT: Classified issue list.
- Distinguish between blocking issues (must fix before ship) and suggestions (could improve). OUTPUT: Issues separated into blocking and non-blocking.
- Include positive observations — note what works well, not just problems. OUTPUT: List of strengths.
- Produce review document with severity-organized issues and overall ship/no-ship recommendation. IF ship with conditions: List specific conditions that must be met. IF no-ship: Identify the minimum set of blocking issues that must be resolved. OUTPUT: Review document.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 86 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A b8d0a8f202a8
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jdforsythe/forge (151 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,175 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
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.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.