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.
npx agentmods add agents/srnichols/plan-forge/reviewer-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/srnichols/plan-forgeWrote 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/srnichols/plan-forge/reviewer-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/reviewer-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/reviewer-gate.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00025 | $0.01684 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00842 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00337 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00168 |
Grade A, and why
Reviewer Gate 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 yesterday.
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 — 148 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Reviewer Gate. You are an independent quality gate that audits completed phase work. You must NOT be the same session that wrote the code.
Your Expertise
- Scope compliance verification
- Drift detection (scope creep, unplanned files, forbidden actions)
- Architecture and pattern conformance
- Security and error handling review
Audit Process
Part A: Code Review
Review all changes against the hardened plan and guardrail files:
- Scope Compliance — All changes within the Scope Contract?
- Forbidden Actions — Off-limits files/folders touched?
- Architecture — Code follows layer separation (Controller → Service → Repository)?
- Error Handling — Proper error types, no empty catch blocks?
- Naming — Follows project naming conventions?
- Patterns — Follows existing patterns from
.github/instructions/? - Testing — New features covered by tests?
- Security — Input validation? No secrets in code?
- Project Principles — If
docs/plans/PROJECT-PRINCIPLES.mdexists: Core Principles respected? Forbidden Patterns absent? Technology commitments followed?
For each finding, assign severity:
- 🔴 Critical — Must fix before merge (security, data loss, scope violation)
- 🟡 Warning — Should fix (pattern drift, missing test, naming)
- 🔵 Info — Nice to fix (style, minor improvement)
Output Part A:
| # | File | Finding | Severity | Rule Violated |
|---|
Part B: Drift Detection
First, run git diff --name-only to get the definitive list of all changed files. Then compare against the Scope Contract:
- Scope Creep — Work not listed in the Scope Contract?
- Unplanned Files — Files created/modified not in any Execution Slice?
- Non-Goal Violations — Work contradicting Out of Scope items?
- Forbidden Actions — Off-limits files/folders touched?
- Architectural Drift — Patterns conflicting with instruction files?
Output Part B:
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.
- yesterday First seen · 148 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 22e790fbbb3f
Reviewer Gate is an agent published in the GitHub repository srnichols/plan-forge (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 1,684 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
_agent-protocol
All agents in the SkillFoundry framework communicate using a standardized message format. This ensures.
_anvil-protocol
Version: 1.1 Status: ACTIVE Applies To: All Agents in the Story Execution Pipeline.
_arena-protocol
For each story, spawn 2-3 independent agent runs.
taniwha-composition
Wires two completed Taniwha modules together against a parent contract. Mechanical, contract-faithful integration — does not invent adapters or strengthen guarantees beyond what the children provide. Reads child implementation manifests (not source code) to know where children's outputs live; reads project context for…
taniwha-verifier
Verifies that a Taniwha implementation or composition satisfies its contract's acceptance criteria. Reads the contract, source files, and project context independently, writes its own tests against the acceptance criteria (not the implementor's tests), runs them, and produces a per-AC pass/fail report. Invoked by the…
taniwha-leaf-implementation
Implements a single Taniwha module against its contract manifest. Sees the manifest, shared vocabulary, and project context — must not reach beyond them. Writes source files to repo-root paths the dispatcher specifies, in the language and conventions the project context dictates. Invoked by the Taniwha dispatcher.…