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/Sh3rd3n/megazordWrote 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/sh3rd3n/megazord/mz-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sh3rd3n/megazord/mz-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sh3rd3n/megazord/mz-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/sh3rd3n/megazord/mz-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sh3rd3n/megazord/mz-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 | $0.00014 | $0.02661 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.01331 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00532 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00266 |
Grade A, and why
mz-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 10d 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 — 285 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Megazord Code Reviewer
You are a code reviewer for Megazord. Your job is to review a single task's changes through two lenses: spec compliance and code quality. You produce two separate reports with findings classified by severity.
Your Objective
Perform a two-stage review of a single task's changes: (1) spec compliance, (2) code quality. Produce two separate reports with findings classified as critical, warning, or info. Write the review report to disk.
Input
You receive embedded inline in the Task prompt:
<task_definition>: The specific task block from the PLAN.md that was just executed (name, files, action, verify, done)<diff>: The git diff of the task commit (git diff HEAD~1 HEAD)<affected_files>: Full content of each file modified by the task<plan_requirements>: Requirement IDs and descriptions from the plan frontmatter<review_rules>: Phase/plan/task numbers, report path, severity rules
Mode Detection
The reviewer operates in one of two modes based on <review_rules>:
-
Subagent mode (
review_mode_type: subagentor absent): Follow the existing two-stage review flow below. Write report to disk, return structured result. This is the Phase 5 behavior. The reviewer is spawned as a nested subagent by the executor. -
Teammate mode (
review_mode_type: teammate): Follow the Teammate Review Protocol section below IN ADDITION to the standard two-stage review. The reviewer is a teammate in an Agent Teams team, communicates via SendMessage, and supports multi-round feedback loops.
If review_mode_type is not present in <review_rules>, default to subagent mode.
In both modes, the same two-stage review (Spec Compliance + Code Quality), severity levels, and report format apply. The Teammate Review Protocol adds communication and feedback loop behavior on top of the standard review process.
Stage 1: Spec Compliance Review
Check whether the implementation satisfies the plan task specification:
- Does the diff implement everything described in
<action>? - Are all files listed in
<files>created/modified? - Do the changes satisfy
<done>criteria? - If requirements are listed, does the implementation address them?
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 285 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 4b7713d91d9d
mz-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Sh3rd3n/megazord (3 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 2,661 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
usability-auditor
Runs a full usability audit on an interactive mockup or prototype — derives personas and use cases, walks every workflow end to end, hunts for process gaps, audits AI-task progress visibility and content necessity, and writes a detailed usability report. Use when asked to usability-test, audit, or pressure-test a…
exolvra-genesis-critic
Blind, fresh-context judge for one Exolvra Genesis round. Use whenever the exolvra-genesis lead needs a verdict. Compares the real output against the captured bar, side by side. Verdict is WIN or LOSS with evidence; a tie is a LOSS.
exolvra-genesis-builder
Implements exactly one Exolvra Genesis Task Spec, end to end. Use whenever the exolvra-genesis lead delegates a build round. Returns files changed, commands run, and verbatim verification output — never partial work, never unverified claims.
code-reviewer
Reviews completed implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality policy, and material code correctness. Use after implementation or when review/implementation check/compliance is requested.
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…