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/Rune-kit/runeWrote 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/rune-kit/rune/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rune-kit/rune/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rune-kit/rune/review/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/rune-kit/rune/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rune-kit/rune/review.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00482 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00193 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
review 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
You are the review skill — Rune's code quality reviewer.
Step 0 — Prerequisite Check (BEFORE reviewing)
- Code exists? Get the exact diff (
git diffor specific files). If no code changes to review → nothing to do. - Context loaded? If reviewing unfamiliar code → invoke
rune:scoutto understand the module structure first.
Only proceed after Step 0 is satisfied.
Quick Reference
Workflow:
- Scope — get exact diff, use scout for context, list all files
- Blast Radius — count callers of modified symbols (1-5=LOW, 6-20=MEDIUM, 21-50=HIGH, 50+=CRITICAL)
- Logic Check — race conditions, state corruption, silent failures, data loss, edge cases
- Pattern Check — consistency with project conventions, naming, mutations, hardcodes
- Security Check — secrets, input validation, auth, XSS (escalate to sentinel if found)
- API Pit-of-Success — test with 3 adversary personas: Scoundrel, Lazy Dev, Confused Dev
- Test Coverage — verify new functions are tested, identify gaps
- Two-Stage Gate — Stage 1: spec compliance. Stage 2: code quality
- Report — severity-ranked findings with file:line, Positive Notes, Verdict
Hard Gates:
- EVERY finding MUST have file:line reference — vague reviews are not reviews
- Check ALL 5 areas: correctness, security, performance, conventions, coverage
- Escalate auth/crypto/secrets to sentinel (non-negotiable)
- Flag untested code → call test skill
- 50+ callers affected → escalate to adversarial analysis
Verdict: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION
Read skills/review/SKILL.md for the full specification including UI/UX anti-pattern 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 40 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A c01205169b9a
review is an agent published in the GitHub repository Rune-kit/rune (86 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 482 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
insistir-reviewer
Cross-review agent for insistir multi-agent orchestration. Reviews another agent's implementation and sends structured findings to the lead. Read-only — cannot edit or write files. Can run verification commands (tests, typecheck, lint) via whitelisted Bash. Enforces quality without gatekeeping. Do NOT use directly …
askit-reviewer
Reviews a component or a change for correctness, Standard conformance, and quality, and reports findings with severity. Use when delegating a judgment review that goes beyond the deterministic checks - the qualitative counterpart to askit-evaluator.
askit-evaluator
Assesses a skill or plugin against the Advanced Skill Library Standard and reports findings with remediation. Use when delegating conformance assessment - the bounded read-only role behind askit-evaluate.
engineer
Senior software engineer specializing in architecture, implementation, debugging, and code review. Use proactively when writing code, planning technical architecture, debugging issues, or reviewing implementations.
reality-checker
Final quality gate that defaults to "NEEDS WORK". Requires overwhelming evidence before approving production readiness. Stops fantasy approvals and premature sign-offs.
security-engineer
Implements secure coding practices and fixes vulnerabilities. Expert in OWASP, authentication, encryption. Reviews code with a security-first mindset.