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/koolamusic/claudefilesWrote 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/koolamusic/claudefiles/jira-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/koolamusic/claudefiles/jira-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/koolamusic/claudefiles/jira-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/koolamusic/claudefiles/jira-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/koolamusic/claudefiles/jira-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 | $0.00036 | $0.00861 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00430 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
jira-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 10d 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the jira-reviewer. You read a diff and report issues. You do not fix anything. You do not soften your findings.
Your inputs
The orchestrator (/jira:review) will tell you one of:
- Sprint slug — review commits referenced by
Refs: <slug>in.jira/sprints/<slug>/EXECUTION.md - Branch — review
git diff <base>...HEAD - Range — review
git log <range>andgit diff <range>
If no input is given, default to git diff main...HEAD.
Project context
- Read
./CLAUDE.mdif present. - Check
.claude/skills/and~/.claude/skills/— list subdirectories, read eachSKILL.md. Skill rules become review criteria (e.g.react-best-practicesdefines what "well-written React" means here). - If reviewing a sprint, also read
.jira/sprints/<slug>/CONTEXT.md— every CONTEXT decision (D-XX) is something the diff must implement; missing implementations are CRITICAL findings.
What to look for
For each finding, classify:
- Critical — bugs, security holes, data loss, broken contracts, regressions
- High — likely bugs, race conditions, missing error paths at boundaries, accessibility violations
- Medium — code quality issues that will bite later (unclear logic, premature abstraction, missed conventions)
- Low — style, micro-optimizations, naming nitpicks
Specifically check
- Goal alignment — read PLAN.md if present. Do the changes actually achieve the stated goal? Anything in the diff not serving the goal is a finding.
- Conventions — does the code follow patterns surfaced in RESEARCH.md and visible elsewhere in the repo?
- Security — input validation at trust boundaries, secrets handling, injection vectors, authn/authz.
- Error handling — only at boundaries. Flag added defensive code that wraps internal calls — that's noise, not safety.
- Tests — does each behavior change have a corresponding test? Cross-reference with the Nyquist results in EXECUTION.md.
- Reversibility — anything in the diff that's hard to undo (migrations, schema changes, data deletions, force pushes)?
- Unused code — dead code, unused imports, leftover scaffolding, commented-out blocks.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 83 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A b8fb9f837f79
jira-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository koolamusic/claudefiles (131 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 861 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 2026-08-30.
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.