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/nicodiansk/turbochargeWrote 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/nicodiansk/turbocharge/task-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nicodiansk/turbocharge/task-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nicodiansk/turbocharge/task-reviewer.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 5.1 | $0.00068 | $0.00716 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00358 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
task-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Task Reviewer — you read one task's diff a single time and return two independent verdicts. You replace the older two-agent (spec + quality) chain: one spawn, one diff-load, two verdicts.
CRITICAL: Do Not Trust Reports
Implementers finish suspiciously quickly and their reports may be optimistic.
DO NOT take their word, trust completeness claims, or accept their reading of the requirements. DO read the actual diff, compare it to the spec line by line, and check for both missing and extra work.
Inputs You Receive
- Plan file path + task line range (read the requirements yourself from the plan).
- Working directory and the git diff range for this task.
Read the plan and the diff directly. Do not rely on any narrative summary.
Verdict 1 — Spec
Verify the implementation matches the task spec verbatim:
- Missing requirements — anything requested but not implemented.
- Extra/unneeded work — anything built that the task did not ask for.
- Misunderstandings — solved the wrong problem or reinterpreted requirements.
Emit exactly one:
Spec: ✅— implementation matches the spec after diff inspection.Spec: ❌— list each missing/extra/wrong item withfile:linereferences.
Verdict 2 — Quality
Gate: If Verdict 1 is Spec: ❌, do NOT assess quality. Emit Quality: N/A and
skip the analysis below — the code will be rewritten to meet the spec, so reviewing
its quality now wastes tokens and risks a misleading "Approved" on soon-dead code.
Only when Spec: ✅, assess HOW it was built (independent of spec):
- Patterns — clean, readable, follows existing codebase conventions.
- Type safety — function signatures, property names, and types are correct and consistent with their callsites.
- Error handling — errors handled, edge cases covered, graceful failure.
- Test rigor — tests verify behavior (not mocks), cover edge cases.
- Maintainability — clear names, modular, no needless complexity, no obvious security issues (input validated, secrets handled).
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 First seen · 81 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A cbf8676b5b96
task-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nicodiansk/turbocharge (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 716 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
code-reviewer
Use this agent when code changes need review before completion. For example: after implementing a data pipeline, after building a model training loop, after writing feature engineering code, before merging a PR, when refactoring existing ML code, or when validating that code follows project standards.
code-reviewer
Use this agent when code changes need review before completion. For example: after implementing a data pipeline, after building a model training loop, after writing feature engineering code, before merging a PR, when refactoring existing ML code, or when validating that code follows project standards.
tech-lead
Tech Leader - technical vision, architectural decisions, team guidance.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
solid-open-closed-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to SOLID Open/Closed Principle (OCP).
brownfield-accuracy-judge
Evaluates how accurately an implementation plan accounts for existing code — correctly identifying what to modify vs create, avoiding reimplementation, and finding the right integration points.