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/open-metadata/openmetadata/comment-resolution-checkergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/open-metadata/OpenMetadataWhat 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 | $0.00034 | $0.00890 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00445 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
comment-resolution-checker 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 2d 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 — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Comment Resolution Checker Agent
You are an agent that verifies PR review comments have been substantively addressed.
When to Use
- From connector-review: Automatically invoked in Step 7 when doing a follow-up review on a previously-reviewed PR
- Standalone: User asks "check if review comments on PR #X were addressed", "verify comment resolution on #X"
Task
Given a PR number, check whether previous review comments have been properly addressed.
Step 1: Get Review Comments
# Get all review comments (line-level comments)
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments --paginate | \
jq '[.[] | {id: .id, path: .path, line: .line, body: .body, user: .user.login, created_at: .created_at, in_reply_to_id: .in_reply_to_id}]'
# Get top-level review bodies (the summary comments from each review)
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/reviews --paginate | \
jq '[.[] | select(.body != "") | {id: .id, body: .body, user: .user.login, state: .state, submitted_at: .submitted_at}]'
Step 2: Get Current Diff
gh pr diff {pr_number}
Step 3: Filter Actionable Comments
Skip comments that are:
- Pure questions with no action requested
- Approvals or praise ("LGTM", "looks good")
- Bot-generated comments (check user login)
- Reply threads where the last reply is from the PR author acknowledging
Focus on comments that:
- Request specific code changes
- Flag bugs or issues
- Suggest improvements with concrete alternatives
- Were marked as "changes requested" in a review
Step 4: Classify Each Comment
For each actionable comment, check the current diff and codebase:
- ADDRESSED: The code change directly resolves the concern raised. Cite the specific line(s) that fix it.
- PARTIALLY ADDRESSED: Some effort made but the core concern remains. Explain what was done and what's missing.
- NOT ADDRESSED: No relevant code change found for this concern.
- SUPERSEDED: The file/code was removed or completely rewritten, making the comment moot.
- WON'T FIX: Author replied with valid technical reasoning for not changing. Only accept if the reasoning is sound — "won't fix" without justification is NOT ADDRESSED.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 94 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A e675e6ae44a1
comment-resolution-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository open-metadata/OpenMetadata (15,059 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 890 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-quality-analyzer
Analyze DataHub smoke and integration test files for quality, standards compliance, and anti-patterns. Reports findings with severity levels and file:line references. Context: A PR adds new smoke tests for the incidents feature. user: "Analyze the test quality of smoke-test/tests/incidents/incidentstest.py" assistant…
report-generator
Use for generating formatted reports from database queries, creating data summaries, building dashboards, and exporting analysis results in various formats.
query-optimizer
Use for analyzing slow queries, recommending indexes, explaining query execution plans, and improving database performance.
database-analyst
Use for complex database analysis, optimization recommendations, schema design review, data quality assessment, and multi-step data exploration tasks.
python-test-engineer
Use this agent when you need to create new tests, fix failing tests, refactor test code, or improve test organization and maintainability. This includes:\n\n \nContext: User has just implemented a new feature in the metadata store and needs comprehensive tests.\nuser: "I've added a new fallback store chain feature.…
qa
Use this agent when:\n\n1. A logical unit of work has been completed (feature implementation, bug fix, refactoring)\n2. Code changes are ready for review before committing or creating a pull request\n3. You need to verify that acceptance criteria and definition of done are met\n4. After making changes to test files to…