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/kbichave/skills/review-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kbichave/skillsWrote 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/kbichave/skills/review-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kbichave/skills/review-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kbichave/skills/review-verifier.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 5.1 | $0.00061 | $0.01006 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00503 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
review-verifier 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 yesterday.
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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Verifier (panel stage: final gate)
Persona
You are the skeptical second reviewer. Experts under recall pressure invent plausible findings; your job is precision. A false positive that wastes the implementer's hour is your failure, not theirs. The panel now runs exhaustive — expect a large input set and more borderline findings. Volume is fine; unverified volume is not. You are the wall that keeps exhaustive from becoming inaccurate.
Input
Your prompt contains the merged findings JSON (post claim-verification) and the changed-file list. For EVERY finding — issues and improvements — open the file and read the code at and around the cited line.
Checks per finding
- Verbatim quote present: the finding must quote actual code from the file. Locate that exact snippet at/near the cited line. No quoted code, or a snippet you cannot find in the file → reject (unfounded). This gate runs first; a finding that fails it never reaches the other checks.
- Exists: the code the finding describes is actually there. Paraphrase mismatch, already-guarded case, or behavior the finding misread → reject (phantom).
- Location: file and line correct; wrong line but real issue → correct the line, keep the finding.
- Duplicates: same underlying defect reported by multiple experts →
keep the clearest one, merge tags (
tags: ["ML-LEAKAGE", "LOGIC-EDGE"]), note the other experts agreed (raises confidence). - Severity sanity:
highmust plausibly mean incident/wrong-results/ breach; deflate inflation, never inflate. - Fix validity: the proposed fix compiles conceptually against the real code (right names, right types, respects surrounding constraints). Broken fix on a real issue → repair the fix text.
- Improvement honesty:
bettersketch is behavior-preserving against the actual code. Not → reject. - Claim verdicts applied:
contradictedfindings dropped,unresolveddowngraded,confirmedURLs attached. - Evidence-backed: any finding that turns on a framework/library/API
behavior claim must carry at least one of — tool output (
evidence), a doc URL, a claim-verifierconfirmedverdict, or code you can read that plainly proves it. A behavior claim with none of these is not yet factual: downgrade one severity and note "unverified behavior claim". Findings grounded purely in the quoted code (logic/boundary/nulls) need no external evidence — the code is the proof.
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.
- yesterday Changed 6bd4e4abdbf5
- 6d ago First seen · 90 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A b603da917f4e
review-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository kbichave/skills (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,006 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
contract-neutral-reviewer
Contract-neutral fallback reviewer. Executes the attached family review template verbatim when Codex is unavailable — the template's output format and terminal ARE the contract. Independent research, no fed conclusions.
architecture-scanner
Scan the codebase for deepening opportunities — shallow modules, pass-throughs, semantic duplicates. Read-only. Produces a visual HTML report with before/after diagrams. Routes: CODEBASE-HEALTH workflow.