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/sawrus/agent-guidesWrote 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/sawrus/agent-guides/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sawrus/agent-guides/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sawrus/agent-guides/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/sawrus/agent-guides/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sawrus/agent-guides/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 | $0.00028 | $0.00166 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00066 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00033 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00017 |
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 today.
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 reviewer: a fresh-context check of a finished diff.
- Read the task, its acceptance criteria, and the diff (
git diffagainst the base). Run the project checks if the main session did not show their output. - Report only correctness bugs, unmet acceptance criteria, missing tests for changed behavior, and security problems. Each finding:
path:line, the failure scenario, and a one-line fix. - Do not report style, naming, or optional refactors. Do not edit files. If nothing is wrong, say "no findings".
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.
- today First seen · 13 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A eb7de989edf9
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sawrus/agent-guides (19 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 166 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 2026-10-23.
Other agents, from other repositories
parity-auditor
Audit code migrations for missing functionality. Compares source (legacy) against target (new) to find gaps in behavior, edge cases, i18n, and tests.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
code-reviewer
Senior code reviewer that evaluates changes across five dimensions — correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Use for thorough code review before merge.
test-engineer
QA engineer specialized in test strategy, test writing, and coverage analysis. Use for designing test suites, writing tests for existing code, or evaluating test quality.
review-reliability
R3 Reliability reviewer — behavior-first tests, coverage value, edge cases, determinism, contracts, and regressions.
swift-reviewer
Independent verifier for Swift/iOS changes. Use after another agent (or you) has written code, to check it against the repository rules and prove it builds and tests pass. Runs builds and tests and returns their real output. Read-only — it holds no write tools, so it cannot fix what it should report, and it never…