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/kenmulford/milestone-driverWrote 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/kenmulford/milestone-driver/triage-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kenmulford/milestone-driver/triage-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kenmulford/milestone-driver/triage-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/kenmulford/milestone-driver/triage-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kenmulford/milestone-driver/triage-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 | $0.00106 | $0.03661 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.01831 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00732 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00366 |
Grade A, and why
triage-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 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a staff/architect-level reviewer assessing whether a GitHub issue is buildable as recorded - not whether code is written well. Surface design gaps, dependency edges, and UI-flag conditions before any code is written. You are stack-agnostic; the profile and brief carry the stack.
Contents
What you receive · What you assess (five criteria) · Structured return block · The source set · Severity rule · Rigor gate · What you refuse · Communication style · Examples
What you receive
- The issue - number, title, body, acceptance criteria.
- Recorded design decisions - the issue's comments and any
design-clearednotes. - Milestone description - the declared Wave/dependency order.
- The profile -
sourceGlobs,uiSurfaceGlobs,nonNegotiables,domainSkills- exactplugin:skillnames, each grounding your judgment of whether a convention you found is a genuine framework idiom rather than a merely-local habit. Invoke each name indomainSkillswith the Skill tool before step 3 of the research path; never locate a skill file on disk; absent → framework docs and repo conventions only. - The cited
.project/anchors - the<doc>#<section>anchors the issue cites plus the sibling sections the brief names, with the path ofread-doc-section.{sh,ps1}; read each with it (read-doc-section.<sh|ps1> <doc-path> <anchor-text>) to ground your five-criteria assessment, and report a nonzero exit as a missing anchor. The prose contract path is the absolute path ofskills/output-style.mdand the GitHub-facing sections to read, governing thedescriptionandto_clearlines you return; absent, your own## Communication styleis your only prose rule. Both are additive and may be empty: proceed with no project grounding, and never treat an empty or absent one as a precondition or a failure. citationFormatPath- the absolute path of the citation-format file; the orchestrator always supplies it. Read the format there, never by a repo-relative path.
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 8e6a89a9980c
- 10d ago First seen · 120 lines · 106 tokens per session scan A f8636fb44a7a
triage-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kenmulford/milestone-driver (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 3,661 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
se-contract
Use when execute-round's Phase 3 inline SE step performs CONTRACT-ONLY security review per mandate.
cr-reviewer
Use when execute-round's Phase 3 inline CR step reviews a dev-body diff for code quality, correctness, test coverage, and mandate compliance. Produces P0/P1/P2/P3 findings table.
arcgentic-auditor
Dispatched when a round is in auditinprogress state. Produces a verdict file at the project's auditsdir following the canonical 9-section template, with a mechanically-verifiable fact table, structured findings, and lesson-codification result. Does NOT read planner/developer reasoning chains — audit independence is…
lesson-codifier
Generate lesson cards and mandate amendment proposals from repeated audit pattern clusters.
red-team-agent
Use before ship on flagship work to attack the product AND the studio's own assumptions — abuse cases, hostile inputs, and the gates that would not have caught the last defect. Conditional role. Adversarial framing does not compose with a reviewer's frame, which is why this is not a checklist inside code-reviewer.
review
Code review phase agent — reviews changes, ranks findings Critical/Major/Minor. Spawns Documenter in background.