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/LiorCohen/sddWrote 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/liorcohen/sdd/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/liorcohen/sdd/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/liorcohen/sdd/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/liorcohen/sdd/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/liorcohen/sdd/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 | $0.00023 | $0.00587 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00235 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 95 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 87ba6991a68c
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository LiorCohen/sdd (43 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 587 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
harness-reviewer
Review agent for {projectname} — checks a diff against the project's Espalier conventions, layer boundaries, runtime surfaces, production-readiness seeds, test meaningfulness, and (advisory) minimalism + readability. Spawned fresh by the pipeline each Stage 4 review round (code AND its tests, one verdict) and for the…
simplification-reviewer
Measures whether the same functionality can be delivered with less - reuse that was missed, indirection that forwards without deciding, generality nothing consumes, control flow with a flatter equivalent, and response payloads that spend more of the calling agent's context than their information is worth.
consistency-reviewer
Verifies that this repo's agent-facing surface - skill-doc instructions, slash-command frontmatter, and plugin manifests - accurately reflects actual behavior and stays in lockstep across the five parallel skill docs and five manifest files.
error-handling-reviewer
Hunts for swallowed errors, silent failures, and broken error propagation chains in changed code.
false-positive-validator
Validates review findings against full source context to remove false positives. Runs after synthesis, before user approval. Does NOT add new findings.
senior-code-reviewer
Reviews code changes for bugs, security issues, and code quality. Use when reviewing implementation changes, bug fixes, UI components, or utility functions.