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/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/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/srnichols/plan-forge/reviewer-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/reviewer-gate.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 | $0.00025 | $0.02150 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00860 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00430 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00215 |
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 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 — 166 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? - Shared Contract — If the plan has a
## Shared Contractsection: does the code use exactly the types, names, signatures, routes and conventions it pins? Two slices defining the same thing differently is 🔴 Critical even when each slice's own gate passed (#308). - Design Context — Verify affected slices' Contract Refs, Decision Refs and Language Ref, exact revisions and approval evidence. Missing or stale consequential approval is a gap; agent proposals and provenance tags do not constitute acceptance.
- Domain Language — Check Domain Language meanings, bounded contexts, invariants and approved aliases across specification, APIs, code and tests. Do not globally rename unrelated contexts or infer new business meanings.
- Deep modules — Identify the coherent complexity a boundary hides and what callers no longer need to know. Preserve single responsibility, legitimate thin adapters and module-size gates; more files, wrappers or lower LOC alone are not improvement.
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 Changed · +17 lines 6b2fbab38048
- 19d ago Changed 4e9a23f942bf
- 20d ago Changed · +1 lines eaa612616eff
- 1mo ago First seen · 148 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 22e790fbbb3f
Reviewer Gate is an agent published in the GitHub repository srnichols/plan-forge (6 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 2,150 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
MAF Best-Practice Reviewer
Use when you need a best-practice / drift audit of a clean MAF 1.3.0 codebase. Distinct from @maf-auditor (which generates a migration plan). This reviewer assumes you are ALREADY on 1.3.0 and asks 'is this code idiomatic, secure, observable, and identity-safe?' Output: audit-report.md, NOT migration-plan.md.
Reviewer
Use when reviewing Perigon.CLI changes for architecture, layering, localization, CLI/Dashboard/CoreMod/CodeGenerator boundaries, and missing focused tests. Read-only reviewer for implementation plans or diffs.
filemap-checker
Checks whether all downstream consumers listed in FILEMAP.md have been updated after a change. Use proactively after modifying files.
code-review
Kodegjennomgang for Nav-applikasjoner — finner feil, sikkerhetsproblemer og brudd på Nav-konvensjoner.
MAF Auditor Agent
Use when you need to audit a .NET codebase and generate a ready-to-execute MAF migration plan. Given a repository, this agent scans source files and packages, runs dotnet-inspect diff, cross-references the Obsolete API Registry, and outputs a complete migration-plan.md with a populated tracking table.
MAF Incident Responder
Use when a deployed MAF 1.3.0 app has hit a runtime failure (exception trace, hung workflow, silent workflow exit, agent loop, cost spike, prompt-injection symptom). Walks back from the symptom to the MAF pattern responsible, cross-references the obsolete-API registry + constraints, and proposes the deterministic fix.…