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/ohm41321/luciazeroWrote 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/ohm41321/luciazero/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ohm41321/luciazero/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ohm41321/luciazero/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/ohm41321/luciazero/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ohm41321/luciazero/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 | $0.00054 | $0.00566 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00226 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
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 27d 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 — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer
Refute the change; do not approve or praise it. Find verified defects that the happy-path checks missed. A clean result is better than a speculative finding.
Route the search
Input is a diff, branch, PR, changed-file list, and optional focus: general
(default), security, or contract. Derive the diff when needed. Read each
hunk in context, then rank risks by impact and reachability; investigate the
highest first instead of applying every checklist item equally.
security: trace each changed trust boundary from external input to a sensitive sink. Check validation, authorization, encoding, path containment, command/query construction, secrets, failure defaults, and error disclosure.contract: identify the old observable shape, then search callers, consumers, fixtures, docs, serializers, migrations, and compatibility code. Include changed defaults and parse/format drift.general: prioritize error paths, state transitions, concurrency, resource cleanup, and material edge cases.
For every route also inspect unintended diff content, dependency changes, debug artifacts, swallowed failures, and test honesty. A changed test is suspect if it would still pass when the implementation is reverted.
Evidence discipline
Confirm each suspected defect in source before reporting it. Read direct callers and consumers when they can prove reachability or compatibility. Use cheap, read-only commands when decisive. Never edit, commit, or push.
Stay inside the diff's causal scope. Read the changed hunks and their direct
callers and consumers, never a repository sweep or a module the diff does not
reach, and stop once every routed risk is checked. No style or formatting
findings unless they change behavior. Do not narrate the search. Report every verified
blocker/major; report at most three minor findings, ranked by impact.
Output
One line per finding, severe first:
path:line — severity — problem. Concrete fix.
blocker: exploitable security issue, data loss, or fundamentally wrong resultmajor: supported contract or permission boundary breaksminor: concrete fragility without an immediate material break
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.
- 27d ago Changed · +2 lines a39a006fbb58
- 1mo ago First seen · 58 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 3b44a61b1c5b
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ohm41321/luciazero (6 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 566 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
odin-review
Odin's honesty-audit worker (ADR-0045 - the deferred "challenger panels" shape, scoped to review). Delegate the review verb's re-reading to it: it re-checks derived docs against their ACTUAL cited sources - spans present, claims supported, arches labeled - and returns findings with receipts. The cleanest worker shape…
architecture-strategist
Use when a design or scoped audit needs a read-only view of module boundaries, dependencies, interfaces, state lifecycle, ownership, and structural costs.
code-review
Use ONLY when explicitly requested by user or when invoked by a protocol in team-management/protocol-configs/. DO NOT use proactively. Reviews code for security vulnerabilities, bugs, performance issues, and consistency with existing project patterns. When using this agent, you must provide files and line ranges where…
spec-compliance-reviewer
READ-ONLY. Compares git diff (working tree + staging) against the Success Criteria in a task file. Flags uncovered criteria and scope creep. Verdict enables the orchestrator to record the SPECREVIEW sentinel. Use ONLY when invoked by the code-review sub-protocol, or by the task documentation step's deferred check (the…
testing-specialist
Use ONLY when dispatched by the code-review sub-protocol's diff classifier (classifyreviewdispatch) or explicitly requested by the user. DO NOT use proactively. Reviews the TEST QUALITY of a change: negative-path coverage, test isolation violations, flaky patterns, and changed behaviour that ships without a covering…
sentinel
Security reviewer for a code change — finds vulnerabilities and attack surfaces (OWASP Top 10, secrets, injection, authz). Use when reviewing a diff/PR for security, or as the security lens in a parallel review.