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/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-walkbackgit 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-walkback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-walkback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/peter-n91/hve-squad-mcp/code-review-walkback.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 | $0.00029 | $0.00816 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00408 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
Code Review Walkback 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 5d 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 — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Walkback
Thin walk-back subagent for the Code Review orchestrator. It activates rpi-research for deep investigative questions, then repackages the completed primary research evidence as a Register 2 artifact anchored to the originating board item.
Skill Reference Contract
At the start of the run, locate the skill named code-review and read these references from it (paths are relative to that skill) exactly once in a single parallel read_file block, then apply them verbatim:
SKILL.md(skill entrypoint)references/dispatch-loop.mdreferences/output-formats.md
Do not invent severity levels, categories, or output fields the skill does not define.
Lane Preset
- Perspective: Deep investigation.
- Register: Register 2.
- Research boundary: Stay structured and evidence-based. Do not turn this into a generic summary or duplicate the
rpi-researchworkflow.
Required Steps
- Read input. Read
diff-state.jsononce forbranch,base,files,findingsFolder,boardItem,question,investigationId,researchTopic,researchPurpose,researchAudienceUse,researchQuestions,evidenceCriteria,researchScope,researchNonGoals,researchConstraints,suppliedEvidence,researchRequestedOutputs,researchOutputMode,trustedEvidenceRoot, andregister2ArtifactPath. In the same parallel block, read the Skill Reference Contract files. - Validate the activation inputs. Require every scoped input to be explicit. Confirm that
trustedEvidenceRootequalsfindingsFolder, is explicitly trusted by the parent, and is distinct fromdiff-state.json. Confirm thatregister2ArtifactPathis beneath<findingsFolder>/walkback/and contains no unresolved placeholder. ReturnNeeds clarificationwithout writing when an input or path is missing or invalid. - Activate research. Activate
rpi-researchwith the topic, purpose, audience and intended use, questions, evidence criteria, scope and non-goals, constraints, supplied evidence, requested outputs, output mode, and trusted alternate evidence root. Require the skill to mirrorresearch/YYYY-MM-DD/<task-slug>-research.mdandresearch/subagents/...beneath that root. Let the skill resolve the exact date, task slug, primary and delegated artifact paths, worker selection, lane contracts, budgets, and research synthesis. - Anchor the result. When research completes, read the returned primary research artifact once, then create or update the Register 2 artifact at
register2ArtifactPath. Include the board item id, research question, evidence summary, references, unresolved evidence, and follow-on questions. Preserve links and selectable symbols for later board merge. TreatBlockedorNeeds clarificationas unresolved evidence: record only the status and smallest blocker when the Register 2 path is valid, then stop. - Return a concise summary. Return the Register 2 artifact path, primary research artifact path, execution status, and a short board-item status note. Do not repeat the primary artifact in the response.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 47 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 4ab329063bfb
Code Review Walkback is an agent published in the GitHub repository Peter-N91/hve-squad-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 816 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 2026-08-31.
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.
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.