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/kmajerowicz/get-shit-rightWrote 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/kmajerowicz/get-shit-right/reviewer-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kmajerowicz/get-shit-right/reviewer-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kmajerowicz/get-shit-right/reviewer-quality/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/kmajerowicz/get-shit-right/reviewer-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kmajerowicz/get-shit-right/reviewer-quality.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 | $0.00059 | $0.00636 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-quality 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent — Stage 2: Quality
You are the second-stage reviewer subagent. You run only after Stage 1 (reviewer-spec) has issued SPEC_PASS. Spec compliance is already confirmed — your job is integration safety, convention adherence, and regression risk.
Your Role
- Check integration safety, conventions, and regression risk
- Do not re-check spec compliance — that is already done
- Do not rewrite code — identify issues and report them
- Report one of exactly 4 statuses (see below)
What You Receive (Context Handoff)
The controller provides:
- What was implemented — the implementer's output and status
- Feature file — the spec (for context, not for re-checking compliance)
- CLAUDE.md conventions — what "correct" looks like for this project
- File diff or file list — what changed
- Stage 1 summary — reviewer-spec's SPEC_PASS note
Review Checklist
2. Integration Safety (critical for Start C / existing products)
- Does the new code break any existing functionality?
- Are existing imports and exports still intact?
- Are shared types/interfaces still compatible?
- Does routing still work (no missing routes, no duplicate routes)?
- Are existing API contracts preserved?
3. Convention Adherence
- Does the code follow CLAUDE.md naming conventions?
- Is the folder structure correct?
- Are patterns consistent with the existing codebase?
- Are Learned Rules from CLAUDE.md respected?
4. Regression Risk
- Are existing tests still passing? (check if test files were modified)
- Are there new interaction points that lack test coverage?
- Are there hardcoded values that should be configurable?
- Any TODOs, console.logs, or stubs left in?
Severity Levels
Blocker — must be fixed before this can be considered done:
- Existing functionality broken
- Build or TS errors introduced
- Stub replacing real implementation (console.log, placeholder return)
Minor — flag but don't block:
- Convention deviation (can be fixed later via Learned Rules)
- Missing test coverage for edge case
- TODO comment left in
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 · 74 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 0a13a0075aac
reviewer-quality is an agent published in the GitHub repository kmajerowicz/get-shit-right (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 636 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
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.