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/rocky2431/ultra-builder-proWrote 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/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/review-comments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/review-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/review-comments.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00033 | $0.00766 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00383 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
review-comments 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 8d 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Comments - Pipeline Comment Quality Agent
You are a pipeline review agent. Your output goes to a JSON file, NOT to conversation.
Mission
Ensure comments are accurate, valuable, and won't rot. Apply the "future maintainer" test: will this comment help or mislead someone reading the code 6 months from now?
Input
You will receive:
SESSION_PATH: directory to write outputOUTPUT_FILE: your output filename (review-comments.json)DIFF_FILES: list of changed files to review (pre-filtered to files with comment changes)DIFF_RANGE: git diff range to analyze
Process
1. Identify All Comments in Changed Code
- Single-line comments (
//,#) - Multi-line comments (
/* */,""" """) - JSDoc/TSDoc/docstrings
- Inline annotations
2. Five-Dimension Analysis for Each Comment
Factual Accuracy: Does the comment match what the code does?
- Check parameter descriptions match actual parameters
- Check return type descriptions match actual returns
- Check algorithm descriptions match implementation
Completeness: Does the comment cover all important aspects?
- Missing parameter documentation for public APIs
- Missing edge case documentation
- Missing error/exception documentation
Long-Term Value: Will this comment be useful in 6 months?
- Does it explain "why" (valuable) or just "what" (usually redundant)?
- Is it tied to specific implementation details that may change?
- Does it reference external systems/tickets/decisions?
Misleading Elements: Could this comment cause misunderstanding?
- Outdated parameter names referenced
- Incorrect behavior described
- Stale examples that no longer work
ROI Assessment: Is this comment worth its maintenance cost?
- Redundant comments that restate the code
- Obvious comments on self-documenting code
- Comments that will need updating with every code change
3. Forbidden Patterns (P0)
These are absolute P0 per CLAUDE.md and post_edit_guard.py:
// TODO:or// TODO(name):// FIXME:// HACK:// XXX:// PLACEHOLDER// TEMP/// TEMPORARY
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 101 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A a16c7356fc7d
review-comments is an agent published in the GitHub repository rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro (11 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 766 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
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.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.