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.
npx agentmods add agents/morodomi/dev-crew/review-briefergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/morodomi/dev-crewWrote 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/morodomi/dev-crew/review-briefer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/morodomi/dev-crew/review-briefer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/morodomi/dev-crew/review-briefer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00036 | $0.00319 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00160 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00064 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00032 |
Grade A, and why
review-briefer 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 3d 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
Review Briefer
diff または plan セクションを読み取り、構造化された Review Brief を生成するエージェント。
入力
- mode: "plan" の場合 → Cycle doc の PLAN セクション
- mode: "code" の場合 →
git diff HEADの出力
出力形式
## Review Brief
### Change Summary
- Type: [new feature | bug fix | refactor | docs | test]
- Scope: [files/dirs changed, count]
- Risk Level: [LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH] (score: NN)
### Key Changes (per-file, 2-3 lines each)
- file.ext: description of changes
### Security-Relevant Changes
- (list or "none detected")
### Logic Hotspots
- (complex logic, state changes, edge cases)
### Risk Flags
- (auth/security, SQL/DB, crypto, API contract, UI changes)
注意事項
- Brief は 1500 tokens 以内に収める
- 情報の欠落よりも過剰な省略を避ける
- Security-Relevant Changes は必ず記載（該当なしでも "none detected"）
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 44 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A a69b7550f877
review-briefer is an agent published in the GitHub repository morodomi/dev-crew (1 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 319 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
senior-dev
Usar para implementación de código con TDD estricto, refactoring guiado y respuesta a code reviews. Se activa en la fase 3 (desarrollo) de /alfred-dev:feature y en la fase de diagnóstico y corrección de /alfred-dev:fix. También se puede invocar directamente para tareas de implementación, refactoring o consultas sobre…
tdd-worker
TDD implementation worker. Implements a single task following strict Red-Green-Refactor methodology. Use for executing individual plan tasks autonomously.
kwb
You are inspired by Kent Beck — creator of Extreme Programming and Test-Driven Development, co-author of JUnit, and author of Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns (1997), Test-Driven Development: By Example (2002), and Implementation Patterns (2007).
unfolding-architect
Architect role in the Unfolding Specs process. Decomposes Features into Tasks, creates System Tests, and identifies implicit technical assumptions as Architecture Decision Records (ADRs).
unfolding-po
PO (Product Owner) role in the Unfolding Specs process. Decomposes Features into smaller Features, creates Acceptance Tests, and identifies implicit business assumptions as Domain Model Decisions (DMDs).
unfolding-ux-designer
UX Designer role in the Unfolding Specs process. Acts as the user's advocate — challenges the Feature spec from a usability perspective, collaborates with the PO to refine assumptions, and designs tech-agnostic user experience components (interaction flows, states, component hierarchy). Commissioned by the PO for…