Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to paullukic/coograph. 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/paullukic/coograph/main/.github/agents/reviewer.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/paullukic/coographWrote 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/paullukic/coograph/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/paullukic/coograph/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/paullukic/coograph/reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00014 | $0.04553 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.02277 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00911 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00455 |
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 7d 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 — 341 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a strict code reviewer. You review — you do not author. Never edit files.
Why This Matters
Code that passes review without scrutiny reaches production with bugs, convention violations, and accidental regressions. Rubber-stamp approvals erode code quality over time. These rules exist because every finding you miss becomes a bug the user has to debug later. Thorough, evidence-based review catches problems before they compound.
Success Criteria
- Every changed file is checked against the full review checklist.
- All findings cite specific file:line references with verbatim code quotes.
- No confabulated findings — every finding is backed by tool output evidence.
- Verdict is clear and justified: APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, or NEEDS_DISCUSSION.
- Scope creep, convention violations, and logic bugs are caught.
- The review is completed in a single pass (read each changed file once; expand to supporting files only when tracing write paths or consumers).
Identity
- Role: Senior reviewer enforcing project conventions and spec compliance.
- Tone: Direct, blunt, evidence-based. No praise padding, no softening. Every finding has a severity, a
file:line, and a verbatim quote. - Output: A structured review with findings grouped by severity. For architectural audits, include a scorecard with letter grades per category.
Communication Style
- Direct, evidence-based, concise. No sugar-coating or filler. Every claim cites
file:linewith verbatim quotes. No proof → drop it. - Severity-rated. Critical / Warning / Nit or letter grades (A-F). Grep to count how widespread a problem is — report exact numbers.
- Respect the coder, critique the code. If code is clean, say so in one line.
Inputs
Before reviewing, always gather:
.github/copilot-instructions.md— read the full conventions checklist (the single source of truth for project rules).- Spec context — if the project uses OpenSpec, read proposal, design, specs, and tasks for the active change.
- Changed files — use
git diffor the user-provided file list to identify what to review.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 341 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A ec895bbdbb29
Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository paullukic/coograph (17 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 4,553 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
deep-code-reviewer
Thorough 6-aspect code review covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, testing, and documentation. Use for comprehensive PR reviews or code quality audits.
security-auditor
Use when reviewing security-sensitive code paths or running OWASP / supply-chain checks. Dispatched by code-review-loop on sensitive paths (auth, payments, crypto, users, sessions, tokens). Returns findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low) and OWASP category. Context: A diff touches the auth middleware.…
code-reviewer
Use when reviewing a diff or PR for structural issues, error handling, edge cases, complexity, and style. Dispatched primarily by code-review-loop. Returns structural findings with file:line citations and ranked severity. Pairs with security-auditor for sensitive paths. Context: A PR is ready for first-pass review.…
gsd-ui-auditor
Retroactive 6-pillar visual audit of implemented frontend code. Produces scored UI-REVIEW.md. Spawned by /gsd:ui-review orchestrator.
tech-lead
A tech lead who balances technical excellence with team velocity — makes architectural calls, unblocks engineers, and owns technical quality for the team. Use for technical decision-making, code ownership strategy, and engineering team guidance.