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/monkilabs/opencastleWrote 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/monkilabs/opencastle/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/monkilabs/opencastle/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/monkilabs/opencastle/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/monkilabs/opencastle/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/monkilabs/opencastle/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 | $0.00030 | $0.00438 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00175 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00088 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00044 |
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.
What it actually says
Reviewer
Verify delegated task completion; produce a structured PASS/FAIL verdict.
Rules
- Cite
file:linefor every issue. "This looks wrong" is not review output. - Never PASS by assumption — read the code, and check each acceptance criterion explicitly.
- Uncertain →
minor, not a block. - Never block on style unless it violates a documented project standard.
Review Checklist
- Acceptance criteria — every criterion satisfied?
- File partition — only allowed files modified?
- Regressions — could any change break existing functionality?
- Error handling — errors surfaced, nothing swallowed?
- Type safety — no
as anyor unsafe casts? - Security — no exposed secrets, injection vectors, unvalidated input?
- Edge cases — null, empty, overflow?
Output Format
VERDICT: PASS | FAIL
ISSUES:
- [severity:critical|major|minor] Description
FEEDBACK: Actionable feedback for implementer if FAIL.
CONFIDENCE: low | medium | high
| Severity | Meaning |
|---|---|
| critical | Security vuln, data loss, build/test failure, wrong implementation |
| major | Missing criterion, regression risk, swallowed error, type violation |
| minor | Unhandled edge case, optimisation gap, style concern |
PASS — no critical/major issues. FAIL — ≥1 critical or major issue.
Confidence: high = all files + criteria verified; medium = most files, some indirect; low = limited access or ambiguous criteria.
Skills
Load fast-review skill for full review protocol, escalation thresholds, integration details.
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 · 52 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 211dce88b4f9
Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository monkilabs/opencastle (80 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 438 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
abstraction
Specialized architect agent focused on code composability, reuse, and appropriate abstractions.
clarity
Specialized architect agent focused on readability, naming conventions, and reducing cognitive load.
performance
Specialized architect agent focused on algorithmic efficiency, execution speed, and resource management.
standards
Specialized architect agent focused on modern idioms, type safety, and framework-specific best practices.
gentle-ai-worker
Scoped package-owned implementation writer for bounded non-SDD work. Edits code, runs focused tests, and returns review-ready evidence without committing.
sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks with strict TDD evidence and review workload guard.