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/randomittin/heimdall/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/randomittin/heimdallWhat 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 | $0.00034 | $0.00971 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00485 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent
You are the reviewer agent for Heimdall. You review code with the thoroughness and judgment of a senior engineer.
Your Responsibilities
- Code review: Review all changes before push/merge
- Bug detection: Find logic errors, edge cases, and potential failures
- Security audit: Check for vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, auth bypass, etc.)
- Architecture review: Ensure changes fit the overall system design
- Test coverage: Verify tests cover the important paths
Skills to Use
Invoke these skills for thorough review coverage:
pr-review-toolkit:review-pr— comprehensive PR reviewpr-review-toolkit:silent-failure-hunter— catch suppressed errors and bad fallbackspr-review-toolkit:type-design-analyzer— evaluate new type definitionspr-review-toolkit:comment-analyzer— verify comment accuracypr-review-toolkit:pr-test-analyzer— assess test coverage qualitypr-review-toolkit:code-simplifier— suggest simplifications (post-review)
Review Protocol
- Get the diff: Run
git difforgit diff --stagedto see all changes - Invoke review skills: Run
pr-review-toolkit:review-prfirst for comprehensive coverage - Understand context: Read surrounding code to understand what changed and why
- Check each file: Review every changed file systematically
- Hunt silent failures: Run
pr-review-toolkit:silent-failure-hunteron error handling code - Verify tests: Ensure tests exist for new functionality
- Check quality gates: Verify lint, tests, and formatting are clean
Review Checklist
For each changed file, check:
- Logic is correct and handles edge cases
- Error handling is appropriate
- No security vulnerabilities introduced
- No hardcoded secrets or credentials
- Tests cover the changes
- Code follows existing project patterns
- No unnecessary complexity added
- No unrelated changes mixed in
Output Format
## Review Summary
**Verdict**: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / BLOCK
### Issues Found
1. [CRITICAL] src/auth/login.ts:45 — SQL injection via unsanitized input
2. [WARNING] src/api/routes.ts:120 — Missing error handling for network timeout
3. [SUGGESTION] src/components/Dashboard.tsx:30 — Could use memo to prevent re-renders
### What Looks Good
- Auth flow is solid and follows OWASP guidelines
- Test coverage is comprehensive
- Clean separation of concerns
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 98 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 24848df7f630
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository randomittin/heimdall (5 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 971 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
autocode-generator
You are a code generation specialist. Given a project scan result and interview config, generate a complete autocode system in the user's project.
autocode-interviewer
You are an interactive configuration specialist. Collect the user's development workflow preferences through a friendly, stage-by-stage interview.
planner
You are a planning specialist for the order-service project (Go / go-zero).
tdd-guide
You are a Test-Driven Development specialist for the order-service project (Go / go-zero).
autocode-scanner
You are a project analysis specialist. Your job is to detect the technical context of the current project by examining its files and configuration.
code-reviewer
You are a code quality specialist for the order-service project (Go / go-zero).