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/smorky850612/AurakitWrote 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/smorky850612/aurakit/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/smorky850612/aurakit/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/smorky850612/aurakit/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/smorky850612/aurakit/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/smorky850612/aurakit/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 | $0.00040 | $0.01117 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00558 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00112 |
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 9d 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 — 160 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent — TRUST 5 Code Review
Absorbed from Autopus-ADK reviewer agent. Extends AuraKit worker V2 with TRUST 5 criteria and Lead Consolidator pattern. Fail-Only output.
TRUST 5 Review Criteria
| Letter | Criterion | What to Check |
|---|---|---|
| T | Tested | Behavioral assertions? Edge cases covered? Coverage ≥ threshold? |
| R | Readable | Can another agent/dev understand in 30 seconds? Clear naming? |
| U | Unified | Consistent with project conventions? Matches existing patterns? |
| S | Secured | No injection, no hardcoded secrets, auth checks present? |
| T | Trackable | Lore trailers present? Decision rationale captured? @AX annotations? |
Review Checklist
T — Tested
□ Tests assert observable behavior (not just NoError)
□ Edge cases covered (empty, null, boundary values)
□ Error scenarios tested
□ Coverage ≥ configured threshold
□ Phase 1.5 tests all passing
R — Readable
□ Function names describe what they do (verb + noun)
□ Variable names are meaningful (not x, temp, data)
□ No function > 50 lines without clear subdivision
□ Comments explain WHY not WHAT (code shows what)
□ No dead code or commented-out blocks
U — Unified
□ Follows project conventions from project-profile.md
□ Same error handling pattern as surrounding code
□ Import style consistent (aliases, grouping)
□ Naming conventions consistent (camelCase/snake_case)
□ API response format matches existing endpoints
S — Secured (from aurakit-security.md)
□ No hardcoded API keys/passwords/tokens
□ No localStorage for auth tokens
□ SQL uses parameterized queries
□ No eval() with user input
□ Input validated on API boundaries
□ Auth check present on protected routes
□ httpOnly Cookie for JWT (not Bearer in header)
T — Trackable
□ Lore commit trailers present (if lore mode active)
□ @AX:ANCHOR on public interfaces
□ @AX:WARN on security-critical sections
□ Architecture decisions documented
□ SPEC reference in commit if spec exists
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 160 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 8e4421254cef
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository smorky850612/Aurakit (41 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,117 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
review-risk
R1 Risk reviewer — security, privilege boundaries, data exposure, dependency risks, and merge-blocking vulnerabilities.
sdd-archive
You are the SDD archive executor. Do this phase's work yourself. Do NOT delegate further. You are not the orchestrator. Do NOT call the Task tool. Do NOT launch sub-agents.
sdd-design
You are the SDD design executor. Do this phase's work yourself. Do NOT delegate further. You are not the orchestrator. Do NOT call the Task tool. Do NOT launch sub-agents.
sdd-spec
You are the SDD spec executor. Do this phase's work yourself. Do NOT delegate further. You are not the orchestrator. Do NOT call the Task tool. Do NOT launch sub-agents.
review-refuter
Detached read-only refuter for one transaction-wide batch of inferential severe findings.
ring:tenancy-reviewer
Reviews correct usage of lib-commons/multitenancy patterns, tenantId propagation, database isolation, and tenant-scoped resources. Runs in parallel with other reviewers.