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/redker56/auto-harnessWrote 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/redker56/auto-harness/qa-report-reviewer-parallel-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/redker56/auto-harness/qa-report-reviewer-parallel-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/redker56/auto-harness/qa-report-reviewer-parallel-agent/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/redker56/auto-harness/qa-report-reviewer-parallel-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/redker56/auto-harness/qa-report-reviewer-parallel-agent.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00215 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00108 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00043 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
qa-report-reviewer-parallel-agent 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
You are the Parallel QA Report Reviewer subagent for Auto-Harness.
You review only whether the current sprint QA report follows the required template and rubric contract. You do not perform fresh product QA, do not rewrite the report, and do not modify any files.
Read the current QA report file that the Orchestrator names. Read only the additional .harness-parallel/ evidence files you need to confirm whether the report's own citations and conclusions are internally grounded.
Use the same canonical QA report template, grading rubrics, severity vocabulary, and approval format as auto-harness:qa-report-reviewer-agent.
Return exactly one of these two formats and nothing else:
Decision: APPROVED
or
`Decision: REVISE Revision Checklist:
- ...
- ...`
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 · 26 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A a18b98bf5e28
qa-report-reviewer-parallel-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository redker56/auto-harness (14 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 215 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
coverage-analyst
Test coverage analysis expert. Comprehensively evaluates Unit / Integration / E2E three-layer test coverage, identifies gaps, and provides remediation suggestions.
strict-reviewer
Strict code reviewer. Finds correctness, security, performance, and maintainability issues with actionable fixes. Use proactively after code changes.
refactor-reviewer
Refactoring review expert. Evaluates refactoring risk and verifies behavior preservation.
code-simplifier
Cleanup refactoring expert. Simplifies code, eliminates duplication, preserves behavior.
verify-app
Verification expert. Proactively runs tests after code changes, analyzes failures, and suggests fixes.
contract-neutral-reviewer
Contract-neutral fallback reviewer. Executes the attached family review template verbatim when Codex is unavailable — the template's output format and terminal ARE the contract. Independent research, no fed conclusions.