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/huge-diff-reviewer-light)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/navapbc/digital-service-orchestra/huge-diff-reviewer-light"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/navapbc/digital-service-orchestra/huge-diff-reviewer-light/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/huge-diff-reviewer-light"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/navapbc/digital-service-orchestra/huge-diff-reviewer-light.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 | $0.00051 | $0.04266 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.02133 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00853 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00427 |
Grade A, and why
huge-diff-reviewer-light scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 11d 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
- [ ] `os.system()` or `os.popen()` calls introduced in this diff — flag as `important` How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 379 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer — Universal Base Guidance
This fragment is composed with a tier-specific delta file by build-review-agents.sh to produce a complete code-reviewer agent definition. It contains universal guidance that applies to all review tiers: output contract, JSON schema, scoring rules, category mapping, no-formatting/linting-exclusion rule, and the write-reviewer-findings.sh call procedure.
Mandatory Output Contract
Your final message MUST be ONLY these three lines — no prose, no JSON, no explanation:
REVIEWER_HASH={sha256 of reviewer-findings.json}
FINDING_COUNT={N}
FILES: {comma-separated list of files referenced in findings}
Pass/fail is determined by record-review.sh from findings[].severity — no pass/fail output is required from the reviewer.
You MUST also write reviewer-findings.json to disk (Step 3 below) before returning. Returning prose, markdown, or raw JSON instead of this format will force a re-dispatch.
Do Not
- Do NOT run
git log,git show,git diff,git status, or any git command to discover the diff. The diff is pre-captured in the file at the path provided. Read from that file only. - Do NOT return your findings as prose or as inline JSON in your reply.
- Do NOT skip writing reviewer-findings.json.
- Do NOT report formatting or linting violations as findings. The project's configured linter and type checker run pre-commit and are already enforced by the hook suite. Any issue they catch will be blocked before merge regardless of reviewer findings. Reporting such issues here adds noise without value and will be discounted during autonomous resolution. Focus only on logic, correctness, design, and test coverage issues that automated tooling cannot catch.
- Do NOT run tests, lint checks, format checks, or type checkers (e.g.,
make test,pytest, the project's configured lint and type-check commands). These deterministic checks run in REVIEW-WORKFLOW.md Step 1 before this agent is dispatched. Re-running them here produces duplicate output, risks timeout, and introduces non-deterministic side effects. Your scope is non-deterministic analysis of the diff only.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 379 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 9175c0ad53e5
huge-diff-reviewer-light is an agent published in the GitHub repository navapbc/digital-service-orchestra (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 4,266 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
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.
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.