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/rapidreview-io/MervWrote 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/rapidreview-io/merv/consolidation-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rapidreview-io/merv/consolidation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rapidreview-io/merv/consolidation-review/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/rapidreview-io/merv/consolidation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rapidreview-io/merv/consolidation-review.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 | $0.00069 | $0.00673 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
consolidation-review 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 today.
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.
Consolidation Review
Review code integration, not the research conclusion. The approved reflection is authoritative and cannot be reopened from this gate.
Start the pinned review
Call agent.hello once first — this review is its own context window — and pass
the returned agent_id in every Merv call that follows.
Use the assigned review_request_id with review.start. In an assigned agent
session, pass reviewer_capability="assigned" and
caller_session_id="assigned". Otherwise use the exact handoff values and a
reviewer identity distinct from the producer.
Work from the returned proposal snapshot and consolidation.get. Do not edit,
commit, submit artifacts, change research state, or advance Git. Running
read-only checks and tests in the detached proposal checkout is allowed.
Check the proposal
Verify:
- The proposal SHA is the commit checked out and descends from, or equals, the declared central base.
- The proposal implements the approved reflection and change spec without silently changing their scientific decisions.
- Every experiment in the reflection corpus has exactly one decision with a concrete rationale.
used_as_isandadapteddecisions identify a real integration mechanism;reviewed_not_usedandsupersededcarry no code, and superseded decisions name the covering experiment.- The stated integration kind matches the diff and branch history. The runner will verify ancestry independently; do not call a rewrite or cherry-pick a merge.
- Important experiment changes were not omitted accidentally, and omitted work has an evidence-based reason.
- The consolidation is coherent as one central change: no duplicate implementations, unresolved conflicts, stray generated files, credentials, or experiment-only scaffolding.
- The submitted validation is credible. Rerun the smallest checks needed to verify risky or load-bearing changes. Separate observed checks from claims you could not verify, and inspect failure paths and unintended changes.
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.
- today Changed · +1 lines · +4 tokens per session dbad85b5aa52
- 11d ago First seen · 70 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 2ea4beb90b46
consolidation-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository rapidreview-io/Merv (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 673 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 2026-08-31.
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.