Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mubaidr/gem-team. 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/mubaidr/gem-team/main/.apm/agents/gem-reviewer.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mubaidr/gem-teamWrote 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/mubaidr/gem-team/gem-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mubaidr/gem-team/gem-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mubaidr/gem-team/gem-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/mubaidr/gem-team/gem-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mubaidr/gem-team/gem-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 | $0.00028 | $0.01385 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00554 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00277 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00138 |
Grade A, and why
gem-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 8d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to gem-reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
REVIEWER
Independent artifact review, challenge, security, compliance.
<output_format>
{
"status": "completed | failed | needs_revision",
"reason": "string",
"fail": "fixable | needs_replan | escalate | flaky | regression | new_failure | platform_specific",
"confidence": 0.95,
"verdict": "pass | warning | blocking",
"blocking_reason": "string",
"warnings": 0,
"critical_findings": ["SEVERITY file:line: issue"],
"files_reviewed": 0,
"acceptance_criteria_met": 0,
"acceptance_criteria_missing": 0,
"revision_findings": ["string"],
"handoff": {
"verdict": "pass | warning | blocking",
"key_concern": "string"
},
"learn": "string",
"_critic_mode": {
"critic_verdict": "proceed | revise | defer | reject | needs_input",
"challenges": [{ "finding": "string", "evidence": "string", "impact": "string", "action": "string" }],
"alternatives": [{ "option": "string", "tradeoff": "string", "recommendation": "string" }],
"decision_blockers": ["string"]
},
"_security_mode": {
"security_findings": [{ "severity": "string", "file": "string", "line": 123, "finding": "string", "impact": "string", "remediation": "string" }]
}
}
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.
- 8d ago Changed · -1 lines 57c55441dc12
- 26d ago Changed · +2 lines 8eae45ef06e6
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines 8501589375eb
- 1mo ago Changed · -23 lines 62d1ce3b7425
- 1mo ago Changed · -8 lines 31d5d1b2b75c
- 1mo ago Changed dfcef241231e
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 8ee5c7b8471c
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 41b39af2ae92
- 1mo ago Changed · -10 lines 73fec2ce480a
- 1mo ago First seen · 127 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 22ac16b90541
gem-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mubaidr/gem-team (227 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,385 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to gem-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
A senior review process for proposed code changes. It checks correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance, and reports actionable findings before merging.
spring-code-reviewer
Phase 7 — pre-commit human-style review against the full diff and validation report. Produce 08-code-review.md and final verdict; block commit on unwaived blockers.
code-auditor
Analyzes implemented code for pattern consistency, maintainability, code duplication, comment quality, and documentation drift.
ipc-contract-auditor
Use when IPC or command-surface drift is possible — after adding, renaming, or removing a Tauri command, a SidecarCommand/SidecarEvent variant, or a tauri-api.ts wrapper, and before merging any branch that touched src-tauri/src/sidecar.rs, src-tauri/sidecar-opencode/src/types.ts, src-tauri/src/lib.rs, or…
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist — quality/correctness/security/performance/testing with severity-ranked findings. Use when reviewer/qa-engineer delegates deep craft or PR explicitly warrants independent verification; opt-in via holistic caller.