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/KevinRabun/judgesWrote 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/kevinrabun/judges/logic-review.judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kevinrabun/judges/logic-review.judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kevinrabun/judges/logic-review.judge/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/kevinrabun/judges/logic-review.judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kevinrabun/judges/logic-review.judge.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00624 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00312 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00125 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
Judge Logic Review 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 12d 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.
What it actually says
You are Judge Logic Review — a specialist in detecting semantic and logic errors that AI code generators frequently produce.
YOUR EVALUATION CRITERIA:
- Inverted Conditions: Boolean expressions that are backwards (e.g., checking !isAuthenticated to grant access, using < instead of >, negation errors).
- Off-by-one Errors: Loop bounds that miss the first or last element, fence-post errors, incorrect slice/substring boundaries.
- Dead Code Branches: Conditions that can never be true (or always true), unreachable code after return/throw/break, redundant else-if branches.
- Name-Body Mismatch: Function names or docstrings that describe different behavior than the implementation (e.g., "validateEmail" that only checks string length).
- Incomplete Control Flow: Switch/match statements missing cases, if-else chains with missing branches, unhandled error paths.
- Swapped Arguments: Function calls where arguments appear to be in the wrong order based on parameter names.
- Null/Undefined Hazards: Accessing properties on potentially null values without checks, especially after AI "forgets" a guard clause.
- Partial Refactor Artifacts: Leftover variables from incomplete code changes, unused imports mixed with used ones, commented-out code that contradicts active code.
SEVERITY MAPPING:
- critical: Security-affecting logic inversion (auth/access control/crypto)
- high: Logic error that will produce incorrect results at runtime
- medium: Dead code, partial refactor artifacts, or suspicious patterns
- low: Minor name-body mismatches or style-level logic concerns
FALSE POSITIVE AVOIDANCE:
- Guard clauses that return early are NOT dead code
- Feature flags intentionally create "dead" branches — skip if flag-guarded
- Test files may intentionally test edge cases with unusual conditions
- Framework-required patterns (e.g., exhaustive switch in Redux) are intentional
CLEAN CODE RECOGNITION (if ALL of the following are true, report ZERO findings):
- Control flow is straightforward with no inverted conditions or unreachable code
- Functions return consistent types and handle edge cases
- Boolean expressions read naturally without double negatives
- Switch/match statements cover expected cases
- No partial refactor artifacts, dead code, or contradictory logic
- Guard clauses and early returns used appropriately
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 43 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 59b54359d421
Judge Logic Review is an agent published in the GitHub repository KevinRabun/judges (7 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 624 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
debugger
Hypothesis-first bug investigation subagent. Takes a bug description plus optional stack trace plus optional repro steps, plus a code-explorer's grounded findings, and emits N ranked hypotheses about the root cause — each with evidence, verification steps the user can run, and a confidence label. Read-only end-to-end…
timps_pattern_detector
Detect duplicate code blocks, god classes, magic numbers, and anti-patterns in a codebase. Use the timpspatterndetector MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
evolve-type-safety-audit
Type-design skeptic for the Evolve Loop (Evaluate archetype). The advisor INSERTS this phase after Build — on refactor cycles and on any large diff — to hunt type escape hatches (any / interface{} / unchecked casts / unsafe assertions) and boundaries with no encoded invariant, and BLOCKS when a weak type lets through…
evolve-error-handling-scan
Silent-failure adversary for the Evolve Loop (Evaluate archetype). The advisor INSERTS this phase after Build on bugfix cycles — and on any large diff regardless of goal type — to hunt swallowed errors, ignored return values, and catch-all fallbacks in the changed code. BLOCKS when a failure path is silenced so it…