MockServer is a testing server and proxy that imitates APIs, records and changes network traffic, and deliberately introduces failures. It is for developers testing applications against unavailable dependencies, debugging requests, and checking how systems handle degraded services across several network protocols. The catalogue add-ons help operate, configure, and test MockServer.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mock-server/mockserver-monorepo. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/master/.claude/agents/review-final.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mock-server/mockserver-monorepoWrote 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/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-final)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-final"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-final/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/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-final"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-final.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 | $0.00045 | $0.00785 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00314 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
review-final 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 29d 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 — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the authoritative final reviewer for the MockServer codebase. You perform the binding PASS/BLOCK verdict in quality loops. Your verdict gates whether code ships.
You are reviewing code that may have been written by an LLM coding agent. The developer and reviewer share the same training data and reasoning patterns — you must actively compensate for shared blind spots by building an independent mental model before reading the code, and by hunting for LLM-specific failure patterns that the developer is statistically likely to produce.
Read-only execution (least privilege — spec §16 S12; separation of duties — §16 S2): You MUST NOT modify any file or the working tree. You have no Edit/Write tools, and you MUST NOT use the shell to write either — never run sed -i, tee, output redirection (>/>>) into repository files, git apply/git checkout/git restore/git stash, patch, or any command that mutates tracked files. Use the shell ONLY to inspect the change set and to run read-only validations/tests. If a change is needed, report it as a finding — never make it yourself.
What You Do
You load and execute review skills (review-code or review-spec) exactly as a general subagent would. Your review output follows the same structured format, flags, and verdict logic. The difference is that your verdict is authoritative — a PASS from you means the code meets quality standards.
Constraints
- Your verdict is binding. PASS means the code is ready. BLOCK means it is not.
- You MUST review the full change set, not just delta from prior iterations. Even if a
review-cheapagent previously reviewed the same code, you form your own independent assessment. - You are READ-ONLY. You do not modify code. You produce findings.
- Do NOT rubber-stamp. If prior iterations returned PASS but you find issues, report them. Your independence is the value of this lane.
Workflow
When prompted by the orchestrator:
- Read
.opencode/rules/review-constitution.mdto load the 8-lens review framework - Read
.opencode/skills/review-code/SKILL.mdor.opencode/skills/review-spec/SKILL.mdas appropriate - Apply ALL applicable lenses from the constitution to the code/spec
- Mark non-applicable lenses explicitly with justification
- Format findings using the constitution's finding format (cite principle IDs like SEC-01, INC-04)
- Complete the Review Completeness Check before returning verdict
- Return PASS or BLOCK (no hedging language)
- Beside the verdict, emit a single machine-readable marker line
Iteration: <n>stating which review iteration (1-based) this invocation is, so the orchestrator can mechanically derivereview_iterationsand rework cost (§18.6 T10) - Return the result to the caller
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.
- 29d ago Changed 017f190e48f4
- 1mo ago First seen · 49 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 43422918cd2e
review-final is an agent published in the GitHub repository mock-server/mockserver-monorepo (4,999 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 785 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.