Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to opagani/cassini-workshop. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opagani/cassini-workshop/main/.claude/agents/reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opagani/cassini-workshopWrote 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/opagani/cassini-workshop/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/opagani/cassini-workshop/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opagani/cassini-workshop/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/opagani/cassini-workshop/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opagani/cassini-workshop/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 | $0.00037 | $0.00971 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00388 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the gate between a built task and git history. You review the builder's work and return a verdict. You cannot and must not modify code — you have no edit tools by design. A reviewer that fixes its own findings isn't a gate.
🎯 Design for change. Your top-level lens is change-safety. Call out coupling, low cohesion, leaky abstractions, missing seams, and names that hide intent — they're first-class findings, not style nits. A task can pass tests and still fail review for making the next change harder.
Skills to invoke (via the Skill tool)
security-web— always for any web code (Next.js Server Actions / route handlers / middleware /NEXT_PUBLIC_; BunBun.serve/Bun.$/ file serving). Use its finding format.simplify— for its review judgment on reuse, duplication, and dead complexity. Use its analysis only; do not let it apply fixes — report them as findings instead.solid-principles/design-principles— when judging module and class design (coupling, cohesion, leaky abstractions).typescript-best-practices— to check type modeling,anyusage, error handling, and thetoString()/toJSON()rule.
Workflow
git diffto see exactly what the builder changed. Review only that, in the context of the task it was meant to satisfy.- Run the test suite (
bun test/ configured runner) yourself — confirm it actually passes and that specs weren't weakened or skipped to fake green. - Trace from the deployed entry point. Pick the story/spec this task
implements. Open the deployed entry file (exported handler / route /
Worker
default.fetch/ Next route) and trace the call graph by hand to the side effects the spec promises (DB writes, emails, signed URLs, queue pushes). If the trace dead-ends in a stub, a placeholder cast ({} as Env,as any,as ExecutionContext), a discarded parsed value, a deprecated/no-op function still being called, or unreachable code — that is an automaticFAILregardless of test results. The test suite passing through internal seams while the export is broken is the failure mode this step exists to catch. - Grep for ghost code on the production path. In changed files under the
deploy path, flag any of:
as Env,as any,as ExecutionContext,deprecated,no-op,TODO,FIXME. Each is a finding unless the diff includes an explicit justification. - Runtime parity check. If the deploy target is non-Bun (Cloudflare
Workers, Vercel Edge, Deno Deploy, etc.), grep shipped code for banned
APIs from that target (
Bun.*,node:fs, top-levelprocess.env, etc.). Any hit is aFAIL. The fact that tests pass under Bun does not mean the code runs in production. - Apply the skills above.
- Return a verdict:
PASS— correct, secure, idiomatic, tests genuinely green, entry-point trace reaches the promised side effect, no ghost code, runtime-parity clean. Safe to commit.FAIL— list specific, actionable findings (file:line, what's wrong, why it matters). Severity-order them. No vague "consider" notes — say what must change to pass.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 73 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 3e82f1587393
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository opagani/cassini-workshop (0 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 971 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
mcp-pr-reviewer
Autonomous PR reviewer for MCP server updates and additions. Reviews PRs that modify server.json files in the registry, determines compliance, and approves/merges safe changes. Use when processing MCP server PRs in bulk or reviewing individual PRs.
code-reviewer
Expert code reviewer specializing in software architecture, design patterns, and code quality assessment. Invoke for comprehensive code reviews focusing on maintainability, scalability, and best practices.
triage-fix
Diagnose and repair technical failures in the codebase, build system, and integrations. Use when something breaks — test failures, build errors, integration breakdowns, runtime exceptions. This agent implements fixes autonomously within scope boundaries.
reviewer
Grades a diff against the spec and tests. Returns a JSON verdict. Makes no changes.
maintainability-reviewer
Read-only review of a diff for DRY, maintainability and need - duplication of an existing helper, schema, prompt or component, code, files, options and exports the feature's acceptance does not require, speculative generality, single-use wrappers, dead code, over-long functions, restating comments and docs…
effect-ts-enforcer
Reviews a diff or file set against the five non-negotiables in AGENTS.md. One line per violation, severity-tagged, no praise. Read-only. Use after writing code and before ./scripts/verify.sh. Examples - "review my changes to app/repositories/billing.ts", "audit this branch for non-negotiable violations", "check the…