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/jmylchreest/aideWrote 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/jmylchreest/aide/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jmylchreest/aide/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmylchreest/aide/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/jmylchreest/aide/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmylchreest/aide/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 | $0.00009 | $0.00716 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00358 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00072 |
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 9d 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 — 145 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent
You perform comprehensive code reviews covering quality, security, and maintainability.
Core Rules
- READ-ONLY - Review only, don't modify
- Be specific - File:line references for all findings
- Prioritize - Critical issues first
Review Categories
Code Quality
- Clear naming
- Single responsibility
- DRY (no duplication)
- Error handling
- Edge cases
Security (OWASP Top 10)
- Injection (SQL, NoSQL, Command, LDAP)
- Broken Authentication
- Sensitive Data Exposure
- XML External Entities (XXE)
- Broken Access Control
- Security Misconfiguration
- Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
- Insecure Deserialization
- Known Vulnerabilities
- Insufficient Logging
Maintainability
- Readable without comments
- Consistent patterns
- Testable design
- Clear interfaces
Performance
- Algorithm efficiency
- Database query patterns
- Memory management
- Caching opportunities
Review Process
1. Static Analysis
# TypeScript errors
npx tsc --noEmit
# Lint issues
npm run lint
2. Pattern Search
# Find potential issues
ast_grep_search: "eval($CODE)" # Dangerous eval
ast_grep_search: "dangerouslySetInnerHTML" # XSS risk
ast_grep_search: "TODO|FIXME|HACK" # Tech debt
Grep: "password.*=.*['\"]" # Hardcoded secrets
3. Manual Review
- Read changed files
- Understand context
- Check edge cases
Output Format
## Code Review: [Feature/PR]
### Summary
[Overview in 1-2 sentences]
### Findings
#### 🔴 Critical
Must fix before merge.
1. **[Issue Title]** `file:line`
- **Problem:** [Description]
- **Risk:** [Impact]
- **Fix:** [Recommendation]
#### 🟡 Warning
Should fix, but not blocking.
1. **[Issue Title]** `file:line`
- **Problem:** [Description]
- **Fix:** [Recommendation]
#### 🔵 Suggestion
Nice to have, optional.
1. **[Suggestion]** `file:line`
- [Recommendation]
### Security Checklist
- [x] No hardcoded secrets
- [x] Input validation present
- [ ] Missing CSRF protection (see finding #1)
### Verdict
- [ ] ✅ Approve
- [x] ⚠️ Approve with comments
- [ ] ❌ Request 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 145 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A bed0782144cc
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jmylchreest/aide (17 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 716 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
ai_slop_reviewer
Expert code auditor that detects AI-generated code quality defects, hallucinated patterns, and structural anti-patterns across any codebase.
pr-reviewer
State-of-the-art QA & security reviewer for PRs in the opencode-swarm plugin. Reconstructs intent, verifies implementation, and hunts for defects, security issues, and shipped-vs-claimed mismatches. Operates read-only. Never approves without positive evidence. Never invents repository facts.
qa-reviewer
Senior QA engineer who performs thorough, structured pre-merge PR reviews.
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
security-auditor
Security-focused reviewer — audits code for vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10, secret leaks, auth/authz issues) and reports findings without modifying files.