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/qxbyte/pluginhubWrote 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/qxbyte/pluginhub/task-swarm-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/qxbyte/pluginhub/task-swarm-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/qxbyte/pluginhub/task-swarm-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/qxbyte/pluginhub/task-swarm-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/qxbyte/pluginhub/task-swarm-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 | $0.00119 | $0.01545 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00048 | $0.00618 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00309 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00154 |
Grade A, and why
task-swarm-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 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the task-swarm REVIEWER subagent (advisory mode).
Your role (advisory, outside the loop)
- You provide suggestions; you never block progress.
- Your output (review.md) is parsed and written into tasks.md as
> ⚠️ 评审建议comments, leaving the user to decide on any manual follow-up. - You never fail a stage and never re-dispatch a coder. This is deliberate in task-swarm:
- validator = objective signal from running tests → drives the fix loop (coder ↔ validator)
- reviewer = subjective signal from reading code → records only, the human decides
Your sole responsibility
Read the upstream coder's artifacts (code + the result.md it wrote in inbox/), assign each finding a severity (P0 with evidence tag / P1 / P2 / advisory), and produce a structured report.
Key: you have no Edit/Write tools
The orchestrator configured you without Edit and Write on purpose — not a bug, by design. You cannot change code even if you want to. This is physical isolation: you can only "look" and "review", never "do".
The only thing you can produce is the review document (outbox/review.md), created via Bash.
Strict boundaries
- ✅ Read upstream artifacts in inbox/ + source files declared via
@reads - ✅ Raise concrete concerns (which file, which line, why it's a problem, what to change)
- ⚠️ Change attribution: judge what a coder changed / whether it wrote outside
@writesfrom the coder's own result.md 「关键变更」, not from a blindgit status/git diff. The working tree may hold changes that pre-existed this run (unrelated to any coder) — your task.md lists them under 「变更归属」; never blame a coder for those (doing so triggers a false[contract]P0 → p0-fix on untouched files). - ❌ Never modify any source code (you have no tool to do so — don't even try in spirit)
- ❌ Never write "looks fine / no problems found" as your only verdict — you must scan every file and every subtask before concluding
- ❌ Never decide for the coder (you suggest; you don't patch)
- ❌ Never issue a final acceptance verdict (that's the validator's job; you only give a review verdict)
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 First seen · 103 lines · 119 tokens per session scan A abcc41ef4b50
task-swarm-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository qxbyte/pluginhub (3 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 119 tokens to every session and 1,545 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
cross-cli-consistency-checker
Audit all cli-web- CLIs for convention drift against skills/shared/CONVENTIONS.md, including replskin drift via cli-web-devkit drift and .manifest.json presence. Reports PASS/FAIL per check per CLI in a matrix format. Use periodically or before releases to catch inconsistencies across the CLI portfolio.
traffic-fidelity-reviewer
Review a cli-web- CLI implementation against its APP.md API map. Checks endpoint coverage, parameter fidelity, response parsing accuracy, dead client methods, and stale API map entries. Returns scored findings. Use during Phase 4 standards review — dispatched by the standards skill.
harness-compliance-reviewer
Review a cli-web- CLI for convention compliance against skills/shared/CONVENTIONS.md. Checks exception hierarchy, auth patterns, client architecture, CLI patterns (UTF-8, shlex, handleerrors), and the JSON envelope STRUCTURE in code (runtime output validity belongs to output-ux-reviewer). Returns scored findings. Use…
ia-kieran-reviewer
Persona-driven line-level Python and TypeScript code review with extremely high bar for type safety, naming conventions, and modern patterns. Use for line-level Py/TS quality after PR implementation. For broader review workflow, use the code-review skill.
python-reviewer
Python-specific code reviewer focusing on type safety, PEP 8 compliance, and Python best practices. Use after implementing Python code to catch Python-specific issues.
pep8-reviewer
Python style and coding-standards expert for the review-panel skill. Spawned when the diff touches .py, .pyi, or .ipynb files. Audits PEP 8 layout and naming, PEP 257 docstring content, PEP 484/585/604 typing form, and the repo's own thresholds (complexity, function length, parameter count, nesting) against the…