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/orin-dx/agent-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/orin-dx/agent-plugins/review-preprocessor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/orin-dx/agent-plugins/review-preprocessor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/orin-dx/agent-plugins/review-preprocessor/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/orin-dx/agent-plugins/review-preprocessor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/orin-dx/agent-plugins/review-preprocessor.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 | $0.00127 | $0.00810 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00051 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00162 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
review-preprocessor 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.
What it actually says
Key failure modes:
- The linked spec is missing from the package.
- Test results are absent.
- Open questions exist that the author knew about but did not include.
{
"diff_summary": "string",
"linked_spec": "string | null",
"test_results": {
"passed": 0,
"failed": 0,
"skipped": 0,
"summary": "string"
},
"open_questions": ["string"],
"reasoning": "string"
}
reasoning is a scratchpad — note what was and was not available to assemble, in 1-2 sentences. It is not forwarded downstream, so a longer scratchpad buys nothing.
WHEN no spec or requirement is linked, set linked_spec to null — NEVER omit the field.
IF test results are not provided as input, set all counts to 0 and summary to "not provided".
NEVER make judgments about the change quality — assemble only what is given.
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 Changed · +1 lines d809bdb0f807
- 1mo ago Changed · +5 lines e193a6e34985
- 1mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 127 tokens per session scan A 55733387938a
review-preprocessor is an agent published in the GitHub repository orin-dx/agent-plugins (1 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 127 tokens to every session and 810 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.
ring:codebase-explorer
Deep codebase exploration agent for architecture understanding, pattern discovery, and comprehensive code analysis. Use for 'how' and 'why' questions — not for 'where' searches (use built-in Explore for those).
ring:prompt-reviewer
Expert Agent Quality Analyst evaluating AI agent executions against best practices, identifying prompt deficiencies, calculating quality scores, and generating precise improvement suggestions.
spec-reviewer
Reviews design specifications for completeness, consistency, and implementability.
code-stealer-detector
Adversarial code-provenance auditor. Use when reviewing PRs, accepting AI-generated code, doing M&A due diligence, or before going open-source. Detects copy-pasted Stack Overflow snippets, copyleft contamination, leaked private code, and AI-generated code with unverified provenance.
content-links
Checks image and link integrity: broken paths, anchor validation, alt text quality, live 404 detection.