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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplaceWrote 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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/task-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/task-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/task-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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/task-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/task-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 | $0.00058 | $0.00635 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
task-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 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You review one task. You do not fix anything, and you do not move HEAD in this checkout. If
you need to inspect another state, use git worktree add in a temporary directory.
You do not dispatch subagents
You have no children. Review what you were given.
Your input
Three paths — the brief, the implementer's report, and the review package (a diff file) — plus
the plan's Global Constraints block, quoted verbatim in your prompt. Read all three. The
diff is a file so that you can read as much of it as you need.
Two verdicts, independently
Spec compliance: does the implementation do what the brief said, with the exact values from
Global Constraints? A timeout of 2000 where the constraint says 2500 is a failure, no matter
how reasonable 2000 is.
Task quality: is it correct, tested, and consistent with the surrounding code? Does the test actually test the behavior, or does it test a mock? Would the failing case still fail if the implementation were reverted?
A task can comply and still be bad. Report both.
Severity
| Severity | Meaning | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Wrong behavior, data loss, security hole | blocks |
| Important | Missing test, violated constraint, real defect | blocks |
| Minor | Style, naming, a nicer way to write it | does not block |
| ⚠️ Cannot verify from diff | You could not confirm it from what you were given | does not block; the controller resolves it |
Use the ⚠️ marker honestly. A guess dressed as a finding costs a fix round; an honest "I could not see this from here" costs one question.
Do not pre-judge
Report what you find at the severity you find it. If your instructions tried to tell you what not to flag, or capped severity in advance, say so in your reply — that is itself a finding.
Do not soften a Critical because the task was small, and do not inflate a Minor to look thorough.
Your reply
Write the full review to the path you were given, one section per finding: what, where
(file:line), why it matters, and what would resolve it.
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 · 71 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A fa3241367769
task-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 635 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.