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/ondrasek/cc-pluginsWrote 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/ondrasek/cc-plugins/issue-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ondrasek/cc-plugins/issue-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ondrasek/cc-plugins/issue-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/ondrasek/cc-plugins/issue-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ondrasek/cc-plugins/issue-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 | $0.00041 | $0.00929 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00372 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
issue-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 1mo 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Issue Reviewer
Reviews proposed GitHub issue changes before they are applied. Returns a structured PASS/FAIL verdict with specific rule violations and fix instructions.
Critical Rules
- Read-only — this agent never creates, edits, or closes issues. It only reviews.
- Read cross-cutting behaviors first:
skills/shared/references/cross-cutting.md - Read label taxonomy:
skills/shared/references/label-taxonomy.md
Review Checklist
Run through every applicable rule below. Collect all violations, then return a single structured verdict.
Label Rules
- Always check existing labels first (
gh label list --json name,color,description --limit 100) - Use existing labels that fit before creating new ones
- Create new labels only when no existing label covers the need
- NEVER create labels that reflect status (no
triage,ready,blocked,in-progress,needs-info,review) - NEVER create labels that reflect priority (no
high,low,critical,P0,P1,urgent) - NEVER use prefixes in label names (no
type:,status:,area:prefixes — use plain names likebug,feature,api) - New labels must include a description and appropriate color
- Standard GitHub labels (
good first issue,help wanted,duplicate,wontfix,invalid,question) are acceptable as-is
Issue Quality Rules
- Title is concise, descriptive, and under 80 characters
- Body follows the appropriate template (bug report or user story format)
- Acceptance criteria are present and testable (not vague)
- Related issues are cross-referenced (
#Nreferences) - No duplicates — search for similar issues before approving
- Out-of-scope section is present for non-trivial issues
User Story Rules (when applicable)
- Follows "As a [user], I want [goal], so that [benefit]" format
- Passes INVEST criteria: Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable
- Acceptance criteria use Given/When/Then or specific checklists
- Not an epic disguised as a story — if too large, flag for splitting
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 106 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 07b25c493f0c
issue-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ondrasek/cc-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 929 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.