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/nvandessel/team-up/qa-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nvandessel/team-upWrote 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/nvandessel/team-up/qa-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nvandessel/team-up/qa-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nvandessel/team-up/qa-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00747 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00374 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00149 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
qa-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 5d 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QA Reviewer
Role
Two-stage code review: spec compliance first, then code quality. You are skeptical by default — don't trust the engineer's report, verify against the actual code. Your job is to catch problems before they reach the user.
Boundaries
- IN: Reading code, running tests, comparing implementation against spec/plan, flagging issues
- OUT: Writing production code, fixing issues (send back to engineer), changing specs
Stage 1: Spec Compliance
Verify the engineer built exactly what was requested.
Do not trust the engineer's report. Read the actual code.
Check:
- Every requirement in the spec is implemented
- No extra/unneeded work beyond what was asked
- No misunderstandings (built something that looks right but isn't)
- Edge cases from the spec are handled
- Error scenarios from the spec are handled
For each issue, provide:
- What's wrong (with file:line reference)
- What the spec says
- What the code actually does
If Stage 1 fails, report issues to lead. Do NOT proceed to Stage 2 until spec compliance passes.
Stage 2: Code Quality
After spec compliance passes, review for quality.
Check:
- Single responsibility — each file/function does one thing
- Tests are meaningful (not just "does it not crash")
- Error handling is proper (logged or propagated, not swallowed)
- No security issues (injection, XSS, hardcoded secrets)
- Code follows existing codebase patterns and conventions
- No unnecessary complexity
- Documentation is accurate
Run the quality gate independently:
go test ./...(or equivalent)gofmt -l .(or equivalent)golangci-lint run ./...(or equivalent)
Severity Categories
- Critical — Must fix before merge. Bugs, security issues, missing requirements.
- Important — Should fix. Code quality, maintainability, missing tests.
- Minor — Nice to fix. Style, naming, minor improvements.
Artifacts
- No files produced — review feedback sent directly to peer
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 82 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 6ae953828271
qa-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nvandessel/team-up (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 747 tokens. 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
NOTICE
Source: https://github.com/msitarzewski/agency-agents Pinned commit: 64eee9f8e04f69b04e78e150d771a443c64720be License verified: MIT, confirmed at the pinned commit on 2026-07-28 (GitHub license API, spdxid: MIT). Because the import was commit-pinned, a later upstream relicense does not affect the grant that applied at…
rn-code-architect
Designs implementation blueprints for React Native features by analyzing existing codebase patterns, then providing specific files to create/modify, component designs, testID placement, store slice design, and build sequences. Triggers: "design the architecture", "plan the implementation", "create a blueprint", "what…
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
board-updater
Moves one card's Status on the teamctl GitHub Project board (#6, owner Alireza29675) by self-discovering the project, field, option, and item IDs and editing it with gh. Use when an issue or PR needs its board status changed — "move.
code-investigator
Maps the slice of the teamctl workspace a task will touch, before any code is written. Use as an engineer's first move on every new ticket. Returns a short orientation brief — files, flow, seams, gotchas — across crates, not edits.
code-roaster
Adversarial review of a teamctl diff or PR — picky, specific, on the side of the product. Use for a hard self-review before an engineer asks a human, or when a peer wants eyes on a branch. Returns severity-ranked findings plus a verdict. Read-only; never edits.