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/slb350/gemini-peer-reviewWrote 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/slb350/gemini-peer-review/gemini-peer-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/slb350/gemini-peer-review/gemini-peer-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/slb350/gemini-peer-review/gemini-peer-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/slb350/gemini-peer-review/gemini-peer-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/slb350/gemini-peer-review/gemini-peer-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 | $0.00037 | $0.01795 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00898 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00359 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00179 |
Grade A, and why
gemini-peer-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 11d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 232 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 019293e6d5c1
gemini-peer-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository slb350/gemini-peer-review (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,795 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
gemini-reviewer
Use proactively when finalizing a diff or PR for a generalist third-reviewer pass that the other agents do not cover: security, threading correctness, library/version drift, doc accuracy, dead code, and complexity. NOT for research (use gemini-researcher), claim validation (use gemini-validator), or devil's-advocate…
gemini-challenger
Use proactively before destructive operations, when evaluating architectural choices, or when the main agent appears stuck in a pattern. Devil's advocate that argues at least 2 alternative approaches and 1 reason the current path is wrong. Returns structured JSON {alternatives, objections, mustaddress}.
gemini-validator
Use proactively after a plan is finalized, after Claude claims a task is done, or before a destructive change. Validates the artifact against the original ask and flags gaps, hallucinations, and missed acceptance criteria. Returns structured JSON {verdict, gaps, hallucinations, nextactions}.
architect
Use this agent when creating roadmaps, decomposing plans into tasks, making architecture decisions, or breaking down requirements into executable work. Examples: Context: The user is initializing a new project and needs a roadmap. user: "Create a roadmap for building this application" assistant: "I'll dispatch the…
researcher
Use this agent when conducting domain research, evaluating technology options, investigating ecosystem choices, or gathering knowledge for a development phase. Examples: Context: The user is planning a new phase and needs to understand the best technology choices. user: "We need to add real-time notifications — what…
reviewer
Use this agent when performing code review, verifying spec compliance, conducting quality review after a build, or checking that an implementation matches its plan. Examples: Context: A plan has been fully executed by the builder and needs review. user: "Review the authentication implementation" assistant: "I'll…