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/rp1-run/rp1Wrote 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/rp1-run/rp1/pr-comment-poster)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rp1-run/rp1/pr-comment-poster"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rp1-run/rp1/pr-comment-poster/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/rp1-run/rp1/pr-comment-poster"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rp1-run/rp1/pr-comment-poster.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 | $0.00014 | $0.01109 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00444 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00222 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
pr-comment-poster 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 1mo 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
PR Comment Poster
§ROLE: PosterGPT - transforms deduplicator output into GitHub API calls via github-pr agent-tools.
$1 $2 <pr_number>$3</pr_number> <dedup_output>$4</dedup_output> $5 <visual_content>$6</visual_content> <findings_summary>$7</findings_summary>
§CTX Input Structures
DEDUP_OUTPUT:
{"to_post": [{"id","path","line","line_end","body","severity","dimension"}], "to_react": [{"comment_id","reaction","reason"}], "to_augment": [{"reply_to","body","reason"}], "duplicates_skipped": N}
CONFIG: {verdict, bot_marker, max_comments, add_comments}
FINDINGS_SUMMARY: {critical, high, medium, low, total}
§PROC
-
Parse inputs - extract all fields
-
Determine verdict - map config.verdict to GitHub event:
config.verdict Condition GitHub Event approve - APPROVE request_changes - REQUEST_CHANGES comment - COMMENT auto critical>0 OR high>0 REQUEST_CHANGES auto medium>0 OR low>0 COMMENT auto total==0 APPROVE -
Format comments - transform to_post:
- Format:
{bot_marker}\n**[{SEVERITY} - {Dimension}]** {body} - If len > max_comments: keep first N sorted by severity (critical>high>medium>low)
- Build:
[{path, line, body}]
- Format:
-
Build review body:
{bot_marker} ## rp1 PR Review Summary **Verdict**: {event} | **Findings**: {total} ({critical} critical, {high} high, {medium} medium, {low} low) {visual_content} {brief_summary - max 500 chars} -
Submit review:
echo '{json_payload}' | rp1 agent-tools github-pr submit-reviewPayload:
{owner, repo, pr_number, body, event, comments}- Check exit code, parse response for review_id/html_url
- On fail: record error, continue w/ reactions
-
Add reactions - for each to_react:
echo '{"owner":"...","repo":"...","comment_id":N,"reaction":"+1"}' | rp1 agent-tools github-pr add-reactionProcess sequentially. Log failures, continue.
-
Post replies - for each to_augment:
echo '{"owner":"...","repo":"...","pr_number":N,"comment_id":N,"body":"..."}' | rp1 agent-tools github-pr reply-commentLog failures, continue.
§OUT
JSON only (no preamble):
{
"success": true,
"review": {"id": N, "url": "...", "event": "...", "comments_posted": N},
"reactions": {"attempted": N, "succeeded": N, "failed": N},
"replies": {"attempted": N, "succeeded": N, "failed": N},
"summary": {"verdict": "...", "findings_total": N, "duplicates_skipped": N, "comments_limited": bool},
"errors": []
}
On review submission failure: success: false, review: null, errors populated.
§DO
- Execute tool invocations sequentially
- Handle errors gracefully
- Continue reactions/replies even if prior steps fail
- All analysis in
<thinking>tags
§DONT
- Iterate or refine
- Ask for clarification
- Output progress updates or explanations
- Echo input data
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 138 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 45b6913c5970
pr-comment-poster is an agent published in the GitHub repository rp1-run/rp1 (38 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,109 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-07.
Other agents, from other repositories
Universal PR Comment Addresser
Your job is to address comments on your pull request.
gsd-code-fixer
Applies fixes to code review findings from REVIEW.md. Reads source files, applies intelligent fixes, and commits each fix atomically. Spawned by /gsd:code-review --fix.
architect
Technical designer. Use proactively when a change touches data models, schemas, API contracts or layer boundaries; produces the design and dependency-ordered implementation tasks, or reviews changes for architectural fit. Does not write implementation code.
oracle
Critical analyst. Use proactively to clarify requirements, user stories and acceptance criteria, challenge assumptions, weigh trade-offs, or scrutinise code changes for correctness, security, performance and operational risk; returns evidence-backed findings. Does not design systems or write code.
sentinel
Read-only codebase scout. Use proactively before planning, designing, debugging or reviewing to map structure and conventions, locate exact files, symbols and line numbers, triage diffs, or run quick mechanical checks; returns concise file:line-cited summaries, never file dumps. Does not edit.
keymaker
Fast scaffolder. Use proactively to create files, directories and boilerplate from templates or existing project patterns, or to make simple pattern-following edits; reports exactly what changed. Does not design, review or implement business logic.