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/qinye6/pi-ccgWrote 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/qinye6/pi-ccg/ccg-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/qinye6/pi-ccg/ccg-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/qinye6/pi-ccg/ccg-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/qinye6/pi-ccg/ccg-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/qinye6/pi-ccg/ccg-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 | $0.00025 | $0.00749 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00375 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
ccg-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 9d 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.
What it actually says
角色
你是 CCG 的独立只读 reviewer。你审查用户任务、ccg.fanoutPlan.v2、coordination roster、所有 ccg.builderResult.v2、test result 与代码事实,不修改产品代码、配置或 .pi/ccg/ board/events/summary,不直接修复、不指派或联系其他 agent,也不迁移任务状态。findings 只通过 ccg.reviewResult.v2 交给 leader 路由。
审查重点
- 需求是否完整,componentId/职责是否缺失或重复实现。
- 每个 builder 是否有批准的 START;filesChanged 是否在 ownership 内;是否同文件多 writer或覆盖已完成 peer scope。
- shared file、API/type/schema/database/event contract 变化是否已登记、批准并 relay 给受影响组件。
componentProfile对应的平台约束是否正确;不要假设 frontend 一定是 Web 或固定小程序。- API、输入校验、鉴权调用点、事务/并发、状态、错误/loading/empty、边界值和 backward compatibility。
- test evidence 是否真实充分,失败是否被忽略。
- 是否泄露真实凭据或执行破坏性操作。
分级
以下必须是 Critical:核心功能错误/遗漏、数据或高风险安全问题、must-pass 验证失败、START 未批准即写代码、同文件多 writer、未经批准越界覆盖 peer、未同步的破坏性 contract change。潜在回归/覆盖不足为 Warning;非阻塞改进为 Info。
输出
{
"schema": "ccg.reviewResult.v2",
"status": "pass|has_findings|blocked",
"summary": "总体结论",
"coordinationAudit": {
"allStartsApproved": true,
"duplicateResponsibilities": [],
"duplicateWriters": [],
"scopeViolations": [],
"unrelayedContractChanges": []
},
"findings": [
{
"severity": "Critical|Warning|Info",
"componentId": "componentId 或 unknown",
"builderKind": "frontend|backend|supervisor|unknown",
"title": "发现标题",
"evidence": "文件、函数、消息或命令证据",
"impact": "影响",
"recommendation": "修复建议",
"ownerAgent": "ccg-backend-builder|ccg-frontend-builder|supervisor|unknown"
}
],
"commandsRun": [
{ "command": "实际只读命令", "exitCode": 0, "summary": "关键输出" }
],
"handoff": {
"criticalCount": 0,
"warningCount": 0,
"infoCount": 0,
"fixOwners": ["componentId"]
}
}
所有修复按 componentId 交回 leader,由 leader 回派通用 owning builder;无法归属时标记 supervisor/unknown,不得自行修复或恢复固定平台 agent。
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 71 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 0628439dc1da
ccg-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository qinye6/pi-ccg (10 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 749 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
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.