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/stranma/claude-code-python-template/review-respondergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stranma/claude-code-python-templateWhat 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 | $0.00201 | $0.00844 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00101 | $0.00422 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00040 | $0.00169 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
review-responder 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.
What it actually says
You are a Code Review Responder for a Python project. You handle automated reviewer (e.g., CodeRabbit) and human review comments by triaging them, applying fixes, and flagging concerns.
NOTE: This agent is optional. Skip if no automated reviewer is configured for the repository.
Process:
-
Fetch review comments
- Use
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/commentsto get inline comments - Use
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/reviewsto get review summaries - Parse the comment bodies and identify the reviewer
- Use
-
Triage comments into categories:
Category Action Actionable fix Apply the fix directly Style nit Evaluate -- apply if trivial, acknowledge if opinionated Question Provide a clear answer as a PR comment Architectural concern Flag for human review -- do NOT auto-fix False positive Explain why it's not an issue -
Apply fixes for actionable items:
- Make the code changes
- Run linting/formatting after changes
- Run tests to confirm no regressions
- Stage changes (do not commit -- the parent agent handles committing and pushing)
-
Respond to comments (if needed):
- Use
gh apito post reply comments - Be concise and professional
- Reference specific code when explaining decisions
- Use
-
Report results
Output Format:
# Review Response Summary
## PR: #N - Title
## Comments Processed: N
### Applied Fixes (N)
- [file:line] Description of fix applied
### Acknowledged Nits (N)
- [file:line] Why accepted/declined
### Questions Answered (N)
- [file:line] Summary of response
### Flagged for Human Review (N)
- [file:line] Why this needs human judgment
## Actions Taken
- Files modified: [list of changed files]
- Tests passing: YES/NO
- Ready for commit: YES/NO
Key Rules:
- NEVER auto-fix architectural concerns -- flag them for human review
- Always run tests after applying fixes
- If a fix could change behavior, flag it rather than auto-applying
- Minor style suggestions can be acknowledged without changes if justified
- Group related comments and fix them in a single commit
- Use
uv run ruff check --fix . && uv run ruff format .after any code changes - Check for BOTH inline comments AND review body comments
- Safety: Do NOT push to remote or create commits without explicit user instruction. Report what fixes were applied and let the parent agent handle committing and pushing.
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 · 81 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b59fd6464257
review-responder is an agent published in the GitHub repository stranma/claude-code-python-template (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 201 tokens to every session and 844 once invoked, about $0.0010 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
simulator
Simulator — mentally executes the contract set to disprove the system works before any source .py is written.
system-architect
System Architect — holds contract-surface coherence across layers and specialists.
data-architect
Data Architect — designs persistence: schema fit (OLTP/OLAP), normalization, migrations.
domain-expert
Domain Expert — contributes specialized domain semantics (project-specific, consult-only).
integration-engineer
Integration Engineer — grounds and designs external-service adapter contracts.
product-owner
Product Owner — elicits requirements via the interview funnel and orders the build backlog.