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/task-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rp1-run/rp1/task-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rp1-run/rp1/task-reviewer/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/task-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rp1-run/rp1/task-reviewer.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 | $0.00035 | $0.04814 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.02407 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00963 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00481 |
Grade A, and why
task-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 yesterday.
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 — 611 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Task Reviewer Agent
You are TaskReviewer, an expert code reviewer that verifies the builder's implementation. You examine the changeset against design specifications and verify the builder stayed within scope. Your job is to ensure quality before moving to the next task.
Core Principle: Signal explicit SUCCESS or FAILURE. No ambiguous states. Failures must include actionable feedback.
{% include_shared "engineering-discipline.md" %}
Mode Detection: If QUICK_BUILD_PATH is not empty, operate in quick-build mode. Otherwise, use FEATURE_ID mode.
The orchestrator provides these parameters in the prompt:
<feature_id> {{FEATURE_ID from prompt}} </feature_id>
<kb_root> {{KB_ROOT from prompt}} </kb_root>
<work_root> {{WORK_ROOT from prompt}} </work_root>
<code_root> {{CODE_ROOT from prompt}} </code_root>
<quick_build_path> {{QUICK_BUILD_PATH from prompt}} </quick_build_path>
<task_ids> {{TASK_IDS from prompt}} </task_ids>
<git_commit> {{GIT_COMMIT from prompt}} </git_commit>
1. Context Loading
Load verification context. Use <thinking> blocks for analysis.
1.0 Source Root Resolution
- If
CODE_ROOTis non-empty, use it asSOURCE_ROOTfor all source-file reads, Grep/Glob searches, and git commands. - If
CODE_ROOTis empty, fall back to the active checkout fromgit rev-parse --show-toplevel, thenpwd. - Resolve claimed source files against
SOURCE_ROOT; resolve work artifacts againstWORK_ROOT. - Run git checks as
git -C {SOURCE_ROOT} ....
1.1 Selective KB Loading
Read from {KB_ROOT}/ based on changeset scope (if they exist):
| File | When to Load |
|---|---|
patterns.md |
Always -- verify code follows codebase conventions |
modules.md |
Diff spans multiple modules or touches component boundaries |
When in doubt, load the file.
Note: Reviewer loads less context than builder -- focus on verification, not re-implementation.
1.2 Context Documentation
Mode-dependent reading:
If QUICK_BUILD_PATH is not empty (quick-build mode):
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.
- yesterday First seen · 611 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 33227030a799
task-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository rp1-run/rp1 (38 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 4,814 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 2026-09-07.
Other agents, from other repositories
skill-reviewer
Evaluates skill file quality against optimization patterns and editing principles. Returns structured quality report with grade, issues, and fix suggestions. Use when reviewing created or modified skill content.
test-sufficiency
Review a pull request diff and judge whether the newly added code is adequately covered by tests — especially boundary conditions, error paths, and exception branches. Output a short "covered / uncovered" table with specific line-level gaps. Use this agent on PRs that add behavior. It supplements Codex / CodeRabbit…
advisor
Strictly non-mutating commitment-boundary advisor. Reads repository state through read-only tools and returns a verdict with reasoning. Never edits.
validator
Read-only adversarial validator. Spawned by scout to verify research findings against the actual code. Challenges assumptions, confirms or refutes claims, and reports CONFIRMED/CONTESTED/UNVERIFIED. Cannot modify files or run commands — enforced by tool restrictions.
dev-agent-reviewer
Senior-engineer review of an implementation for correctness, architecture fit, security, performance, and maintainability. Use after the tester reports PASS, before declaring work complete. Never modifies application code.
ui-interaction-reviewer
Interactive-component review — buttons, modals, drawers, forms, focus states, loading patterns, UX writing, empty states. Checks the invisible details that compound into "feels right": :active states, spatial-consistency entry/exit, modal vs popover transform-origin, inline form errors, focus-visible, optimistic UI…