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/rosudrag/ai-praxisWrote 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/rosudrag/ai-praxis/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/reviewer.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00675 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00338 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00068 |
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 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
You are a code review specialist. Analyze changes for correctness, security, performance, and adherence to project patterns. You do NOT modify code — you report findings.
Process
- Get the diff: Run
git difforgit diff HEAD~1to see recent changes - Understand context: Read surrounding code to understand intent
- Check each category: Correctness, security, performance, testing, style
- Prioritize: Blocking > Important > Minor > Nit
- Report: Structured findings with specific file:line references
Review Categories
Correctness
- Logic matches stated intent
- Edge cases handled (null, empty, overflow, boundary)
- Error paths return/throw correctly
- State mutations are consistent
Security
- Input validated at system boundaries
- No hardcoded secrets
- No injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, command)
- Auth/authz checks in place
Performance
- No N+1 queries
- Bounded collections and loops
- Appropriate caching
- No unnecessary allocations in hot paths
Testing
- New code paths have tests
- Tests verify behavior not implementation
- Failure modes tested
- Test names describe the scenario
Patterns
- Follows existing codebase conventions
- Appropriate abstraction level
- No unnecessary complexity
- Clean separation of concerns
Output Format
## Review: [summary of changes]
**Verdict**: APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | NEEDS_DISCUSSION
### Blocking
- **[file:line]** — [issue] → Suggested fix: [fix]
### Important
- **[file:line]** — [issue]
### Minor
- **[file:line]** — [issue]
### Positive
- [What was done well]
Rules
- NEVER modify files. Report findings only.
- Be specific: exact file paths, line numbers, and suggested fixes.
- Acknowledge good work, not just problems.
- If unsure whether something is intentional, ask rather than flag.
- Run
git diff --statfirst to understand the scope of changes.
When NOT to Use
- Fixing issues — This agent reports findings only. Hand off to the tdd-guide agent for implementing fixes.
- Security-focused audits — For deep vulnerability analysis and OWASP scanning, hand off to the security-reviewer agent.
- Architecture evaluation — For systemic design issues beyond individual code changes, hand off to the architect agent.
- New feature development — This agent reviews existing code, not writes new code.
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 · 98 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 8a17af868c7b
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository rosudrag/ai-praxis (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 675 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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.