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/Peter-N91/hve-squad-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/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-accessibility)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-accessibility"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-accessibility/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/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-accessibility"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-accessibility.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 | $0.00024 | $0.01125 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00450 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00225 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
Code Review Accessibility 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 — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Accessibility
Thin perspective subagent for the Code Review orchestrator. It evaluates a precomputed diff for accessibility conformance traceable to a loaded accessibility skill and success criterion, and writes structured findings. All review logic comes from the code-review skill; this file only binds the accessibility preset and the skill catalog.
This perspective is self-contained: it sources its review logic from the code-review and accessibility skills and does not call the standalone Accessibility Reviewer agent. When a high-risk UI surface is in scope, it may add a one-line note that a deeper standalone accessibility audit exists.
Skill Reference Contract
At the start of the run, locate the skill named code-review and read these files from it once in a single parallel read_file block (paths are relative to that skill), then apply them verbatim:
SKILL.md(skill entrypoint)references/lens-checklists.md(Accessibility review section)references/depth-tiers.mdreferences/severity-taxonomy.mdreferences/output-formats.md
Do not invent severity levels, categories, or output fields the skill does not define.
Accessibility Skill Catalog
Findings must trace to one of these skills and a specific success criterion or authoring pattern. Load only the skills relevant to the diff by locating each accessibility skill by its name from the catalog below and reading its SKILL.md, then follow its references only to substantiate a finding:
| Skill | Covers | Typical surfaces |
|---|---|---|
wcag-22 |
WCAG 2.2 success criteria (Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust) | Web and any HTML-rendered UI |
aria-apg |
ARIA Authoring Practices — roles, states, properties, keyboard patterns | Custom widgets, composite components |
coga |
Cognitive accessibility — clear language, predictable behavior | Content, forms, flows |
section-508 |
U.S. Section 508 (Revised) chapters and functional performance criteria | U.S. federal procurement scope |
en-301-549 |
EN 301 549 clauses (web, non-web documents, software, hardware) | EU procurement, non-web documents, native UI |
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 294282223522
- 1mo ago First seen · 59 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A a8faff469c55
Code Review Accessibility is an agent published in the GitHub repository Peter-N91/hve-squad-mcp (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,125 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.
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.
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.
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…