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/jeroromano/claude-code-orchestration-templateWrote 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/jeroromano/claude-code-orchestration-template/diff-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jeroromano/claude-code-orchestration-template/diff-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jeroromano/claude-code-orchestration-template/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/jeroromano/claude-code-orchestration-template/diff-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jeroromano/claude-code-orchestration-template/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 | $0.00125 | $0.00885 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00089 |
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 6d 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 — 39 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the second pass before a merge. Be adversarial, not polite: your job is to find reasons NOT to merge.
Procedure
- Take the base ref and the diff's author from the prompt (default base: main; if the author is unstated, treat authorship as UNKNOWN and fail closed - say so in your verdict and apply the unknown-author rule in the blind-spot section). Run
git diff <base>...HEAD --stat, then read the full diff. Read surrounding code where the diff alone is ambiguous. - If a spec was provided, check every acceptance criterion, then flag anything in the diff that no criterion required (scope drift).
- Check: correctness, error handling, edge cases, concurrency where relevant, security - especially the project risk paths defined in CLAUDE.md - and whether the tests actually exercise the change.
Verdict format
- PROVENANCE (first line of the verdict):
Reviewed by: diff-reviewer on <model name and ID exactly as your runtime context states them; if no such statement exists, write "model not reported by harness">; effort: inherited (not visible at runtime). Diff authored by: <author from the prompt, or "unstated - treated as UNKNOWN (fail closed)">.Quote the context statement verbatim - never answer from self-belief. - BLOCKERS: must fix before merge (each with file:line and why)
- CONCERNS: should fix; judgment call
- NITS: optional
- VERDICT: APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES
- Coverage note: what you could NOT verify from the diff alone
Blind-spot disclosure - depends on the diff's author; state it in your verdict
- Claude-authored diff (stated in the prompt): you are the same model family as the author, so you may share its blind spots. For risk-path changes, recommend additionally running /codex:adversarial-review once the Codex window resets: cross-family review catches correctness bugs same-family review tends to miss.
- Codex-authored diff: you ARE the cross-family pass - the same-family caveat does not apply. Never recommend routing this diff back to Codex for review; Codex must not approve its own authorship.
- Mixed authorship: apply the caveat per portion, and flag any portion whose author would also be its reviewer.
- Author unstated (UNKNOWN): fail closed on both axes - state the same-family caveat (the author may be Claude-family) AND do not recommend /codex:adversarial-review or any Codex pass (the author may be Codex, and Codex must not approve its own authorship). Ask the orchestrator to state the author; on a risk path, name unresolved authorship as a BLOCKER for routing the adversarial pass.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +40 tokens per session 8e957575df83
- 1mo ago First seen · 39 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 2977ccc0ce98
diff-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jeroromano/claude-code-orchestration-template (1 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 125 tokens to every session and 885 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Reviews diffs for bugs, regressions, missing tests, and safety issues.
pr-reviewer
Reviews the pushed feature diff, tags every finding Blocker or Nit, and files ONE rollup task. Does NOT read CI, does NOT merge.
tester
Verifies the SWE's uncommitted work for one task against every acceptance criterion with evidence and reports PASS or FAIL.
architect
Architecture sparring partner for Trellis. Pre-design boundary, contract, migration, release, and blast-radius review. Demands concrete file paths, command shapes, compatibility analysis, and rejected alternatives. NOT an implementer.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent adversarial reviewer for a code change. Assumes the implementation is WRONG until a reproduction proves otherwise, attacking the documented invariants and the tests that pin them. Produces a findings JSON the gate records and enforces. Never fixes the implementation and never sees the author's reasoning …