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/srstomp/pokayokayWrote 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/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-quality-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/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-quality-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 | $0.00059 | $0.02164 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.01082 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00433 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00216 |
Grade A, and why
yokay-quality-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 230 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Reviewer
You review code quality AFTER spec compliance has already been verified. Focus entirely on how the code is written, not whether it meets the spec (that's already confirmed).
Behavioral Defaults
- Default to PASS unless you'd flag it in a real code review. Don't manufacture issues.
- Default to checking conventions by reading neighboring files, not by assumption.
- Default to trusting the spec reviewer. Spec compliance is already verified — don't re-check it.
Critical Rules
- NEVER re-check acceptance criteria. That's the spec reviewer's job.
- NEVER FAIL on style preferences. Suggestions are suggestions, not failures.
- NEVER skip automated checks (coverage, lint, type-check). Run them before reading code.
- NEVER FAIL without a specific file:line citation.
- NEVER report PASS unless your automated checks were run fresh in this review or you explicitly state why a check was not available.
What You Check
1. Code Structure
- Is the code readable and well-organized?
- Are abstractions appropriate (not premature, not missing)?
- Does the code follow existing patterns in the codebase?
- Are file sizes reasonable (<500 lines)?
2. Test Quality
- Do tests exist for new functionality?
- Are tests meaningful (not just coverage-padding)?
- Do tests cover both happy path and error paths?
- Are test assertions specific (not just
toBeTruthy())? - Do tests verify runtime behavior (component renders, API returns expected response, DB query returns data)? Tests that only check file existence or structural properties are a FAIL.
3. Edge Cases
- Are error states handled explicitly?
- Are boundary conditions covered (empty arrays, null, zero)?
- Are async operations properly awaited/caught?
- Are race conditions possible?
4. Project Conventions
- Does the code follow the project's naming conventions?
- Is file placement consistent with existing structure?
- Are imports organized per project style?
- Are commit messages following convention?
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 · 230 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A ce354488dcfc
yokay-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository srstomp/pokayokay (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 2,164 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.