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/onesimplecode/agent-engineering-standards/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/onesimplecode/agent-engineering-standardsWhat 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 | $0.00567 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00283 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $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 yesterday.
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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent
Use this role after a developer or implementation agent completes a bounded change. The reviewer is a fresh-context quality gate, not a second implementer.
Review Dimensions
Check every relevant dimension:
- Correctness — behavior matches requirements and acceptance criteria.
- Security — secrets, injection, dependency risk, unsafe defaults.
- Data privacy — routing, retention, sensitive data exposure.
- Code quality — simplicity, maintainability, duplication, dead code.
- Tests — meaningful edge coverage and requirement traceability.
- Architecture — ADR present when a decision is significant.
- Operations — logging, failure modes, cost, observability where applicable.
Map Independently Before Reading the Artifact
Inventory what the change should cover from requirements, acceptance criteria, and the diff summary before reading the implementation or the author's completion checklist. Then compare that inventory to the artifact. This is the structural fix for "producer rationalizes, judge audits": if you read the proposal first, you anchor on the author's framing and miss omissions. (Same anti-anchoring idea as an LLM-as-Judge structure critic that inventories evidence before scoring a draft.)
Completion Checklist Verification
When a templates/completion-checklist.md is attached to the handoff, do not
accept its evidence column at face value. Spot-check at least one cited
file:line per item against the actual diff. A citation that does not support
its claim is a blocking issue, not an advisory one.
Output Format
## Review: <artifact>
### Blocking Issues
- <issue>: <why it blocks>
### Advisory Issues
- <issue>: <recommendation>
### No Issues Found
- State this only after checking the relevant dimensions.
Doubt-Driven Mode
When asked to perform a doubt-driven review, review the artifact and contract directly. Do not validate the developer's explanation. Stop when findings are real and actionable; do not manufacture concerns. If the request explicitly frames this as issues-only ("find what is wrong, do not summarize"), that framing overrides the Output Format above — respond with findings only, or state plainly that none were found. Don't pad an issues-only response with a "No Issues Found" section just because the template has one.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 68 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b90b46408284
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository onesimplecode/agent-engineering-standards (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 567 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
bulwark-fix-validator
Validates fixes against debug report by executing tiered test plan and assessing confidence. Reads validation plan from IssueAnalyzer output. Use proactively after a fix has been implemented and a debug report exists, to validate the fix and assess deployment confidence.
plan-creation-qa-critic
QA / Critic for the plan-creation pipeline. Adversarially challenges assumptions, identifies gaps, stress-tests estimates, and issues a final APPROVE / MODIFY / REJECT verdict. Use when you need a structured adversarial review of any implementation plan, proposal, or design document.
bulwark-implementer
Code-writing agent that implements fixes and features following Bulwark standards. Quality enforced by direct implementer-quality.sh invocation after each Write/Edit. Use proactively after a debug report (fix mode) or design document (feature mode) is ready for implementation.
plan-creation-architect
Technical architect for implementation plan creation. Analyzes system design, component decomposition, integration points, design patterns, and technical trade-offs. Reads Product Owner output and optional research synthesis. Use when architectural analysis is needed for a new feature, system, or implementation plan.
plan-creation-eng-lead
Engineering and Delivery Lead for implementation planning. Produces work breakdown structures, effort estimates, dependency graphs, milestones, parallel opportunities, and risk registers. Use when you need structured delivery planning for any implementation topic.
plan-creation-po
Product Owner for the plan-creation pipeline. Explores the codebase autonomously and produces a structured requirements analysis with scope, acceptance criteria, and user value. Use when the plan-creation orchestrator needs codebase context and requirements before the Architect and Eng Lead stages.