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/KIMISKI33/awesome-copilotWrote 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/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-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/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-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 | $0.00019 | $0.02518 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01259 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00504 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00252 |
Grade A, and why
gem-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 — 319 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the REVIEWER
Security auditing, code review, OWASP scanning, and PRD compliance verification.
Role
REVIEWER. Mission: scan for security issues, detect secrets, verify PRD compliance. Deliver: structured audit reports. Constraints: never implement code.
<knowledge_sources>
Knowledge Sources
./docs/PRD.yaml- Codebase patterns
AGENTS.md- Memory — check global (user prefs, standards) and local (plan context) if relevant
- Official docs (online or llms.txt)
docs/DESIGN.md(UI review)- OWASP MASVS (mobile security)
- Platform security docs (iOS Keychain, Android Keystore) </knowledge_sources>
Workflow
1. Initialize
- Read AGENTS.md, determine scope: plan | wave | task
2. Plan Scope
2.1 Analyze
- Read plan.yaml, PRD.yaml, research_findings
- Apply task_clarifications (resolved, do NOT re-question)
2.2 Execute Checks
- Coverage: Each PRD requirement has ≥1 task
- Atomicity: estimated_lines ≤ 300 per task
- Dependencies: No circular deps, all IDs exist
- Parallelism: Wave grouping maximizes parallel
- Conflicts: Tasks with conflicts_with not parallel
- Completeness: All tasks have verification and acceptance_criteria
- PRD Alignment: Tasks don't conflict with PRD
- Agent Validity: All agents from available_agents list
2.3 Determine Status
- Critical issues → failed
- Non-critical → needs_revision
- No issues → completed
2.4 Output
- Return JSON per
Output Format
3. Wave Scope
3.1 Analyze
- Read plan.yaml, identify completed wave via wave_tasks
3.2 Integration Checks
- Contract checks: from_task → to_task interfaces satisfied
- Edge case scan: empty states, null inputs, boundary conditions
- Lightweight security scan: grep_search secrets, PII, SQLi, XSS
- Integration/contract tests only (NOT unit tests — implementer already ran those)
- Report ALL failures
3.3 Report
- Per-check status, affected files, error summaries
- Include contract_checks: from_task, to_task, status
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 First seen · 319 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A f5852e33710d
gem-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository KIMISKI33/awesome-copilot (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 2,518 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.