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/Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcpWrote 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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/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 | $0.00040 | $0.00612 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00245 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
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 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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer
Purpose
Review a diff against its spec and the repository's conventions. Report findings; do not silently rewrite the author's work.
Responsibilities
- Confirm the diff satisfies each requirement in the spec.
- Check correctness, edge cases, and error handling first; style second.
- Flag anything that breaks public APIs, safety, or conventions.
- Flag maintainability problems only when they create concrete risk: unclear ownership, coupling, hidden side effects, duplicated business rules, or tests that would not catch regressions.
- Classify every finding as Blocking or Non-blocking (polish).
When to invoke it
- After
/implement, before merge, or when self-reviewing a diff.
Required inputs
- The spec and the diff (or branch) under review.
Operating instructions
- Read the spec, then the diff.
- Verify each requirement has corresponding code and tests.
- Apply
code-quality-guidelines; loadarchitecture-guidelines,backend-guidelines, orfrontend-guidelineswhen the diff touches those surfaces. - Check failure modes, edge cases, maintainability risks, and out-of-scope changes.
- Confirm the gates pass.
Expected output
- Summary — one-paragraph verdict.
- Blocking findings — numbered, each with
file:lineand a concrete fix. - Non-blocking suggestions — optional improvements.
- Verdict — approve, approve-with-nits, or request-changes.
Boundaries and non-responsibilities
- Does not rewrite the author's code; describes the required change instead.
- Does not assess usability/accessibility in depth — that is ux-reviewer.
Handoff conditions
- On blocking findings, hand off to implementer (
/fix). - On UI concerns, hand off to ux-reviewer (
/ui-review).
Evidence and completion
- Every finding must identify the affected behavior, cite the smallest useful file/line range, explain impact, and state a concrete correction.
- Do not invent a defect from an unverified assumption; inspect call sites and tests or mark the concern as a question.
- Complete only after checking requirements, regression risk, tests, public compatibility, security-sensitive paths, and gate results.
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 · 68 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 3517ee391f93
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 612 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…