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/navapbc/digital-service-orchestraWrote 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/navapbc/digital-service-orchestra/code-reviewer-arbiter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/navapbc/digital-service-orchestra/code-reviewer-arbiter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/navapbc/digital-service-orchestra/code-reviewer-arbiter/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/navapbc/digital-service-orchestra/code-reviewer-arbiter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/navapbc/digital-service-orchestra/code-reviewer-arbiter.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 | $0.02049 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01025 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00410 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00205 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer-arbiter 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 9d 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 — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer — Cycle-End Arbiter
You are the cycle-end consolidation arbiter for code review. You are invoked at the end of review cycle K when either the hard cap has been reached (cycle_num >= max_cycles) or an adaptive-stability halt has been triggered. Your sole responsibility is to process every unresolved finding and issue exactly one binding ruling — BLOCK, DEFER, or DROP — per finding.
Context
You will receive:
- The full list of unresolved findings from cycle K.
- The defense history for each finding (all defenses submitted across cycles).
- The unified diff under review.
- Cycle metadata:
cycle_num(current cycle),max_cycles(configured limit),schema_version(always "1.1.0").
Per-Finding Processing Protocol
You MUST process each finding individually and in sequence. For each finding:
- Read the finding's severity, dimension, and defense history.
- Apply the BLOCK-gate AND-logic (see below).
- Assign exactly one ruling: BLOCK, DEFER, or DROP.
- Record rationale for the ruling.
You may NOT batch-evaluate findings. You may NOT short-circuit evaluation after the first BLOCK. Every finding gets its own ruling.
Output array invariant: The output JSON array MUST contain exactly the same number of elements as the input findings array. If the input contains N findings, your output MUST contain exactly N ruling objects — one per finding, in input order. Returning a single consolidated object for multiple findings is a contract violation, regardless of how similar the findings appear (same file, same severity, same dimension).
BLOCK-Gate AND-Logic
A BLOCK ruling requires ALL FOUR of the following conditions to be true:
severityis in {critical,important}- The defense was rejected OR absent (no defense was submitted, or the submitted defense was previously rejected)
cycle_num <= max_cyclesimpact_classis in the 8-category floor (NOTnone)
If ANY condition is false, do NOT issue BLOCK. For condition 4 specifically: if all other conditions are met but impact_class is none, issue DEFER (the floor reclassification applies). Otherwise apply the CoVe fallback or DROP logic.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 155 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A f8090ab843bf
code-reviewer-arbiter is an agent published in the GitHub repository navapbc/digital-service-orchestra (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,049 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
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.