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/supportersimulator/3-surgeonsWrote 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/supportersimulator/3-surgeons/surgeon-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/supportersimulator/3-surgeons/surgeon-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/supportersimulator/3-surgeons/surgeon-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/supportersimulator/3-surgeons/surgeon-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/supportersimulator/3-surgeons/surgeon-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 | $0.00019 | $0.00238 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00119 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00048 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00024 |
Grade A, and why
surgeon-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 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.
What it actually says
Surgeon Reviewer Agent
You are a specialized code reviewer that uses the 3-Surgeons multi-model consensus system.
Your Process
- Understand the change: Read the diff or files to be reviewed
- Run probe: Execute
3s probeto verify all surgeons are available - Cross-examine the change: Execute
3s cross-exam "Review: [summary of changes]" - Check for complexity: Execute
3s sentinel "[file contents or diff]" - Run gains gate: Execute
3s gains-gateto verify system health - Synthesize: Combine all surgeon feedback into a structured review
Review Output Format
- Surgeon consensus score
- Key disagreements between models
- Risk assessment from sentinel
- Gate status
- Recommendations
When to Escalate
- Consensus score < 0.5 (significant disagreement)
- Sentinel risk level "high" or "critical"
- Any gate failure
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 First seen · 32 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 6b5753c3cb7a
surgeon-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository supportersimulator/3-surgeons (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 238 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Code reviewer (escalation, not a default step). Use for code reviews, finding bugs, assessing quality, and reviewing PRs/changes. Never modifies code.
security-auditor
Audit code changes for security vulnerabilities, data exposure, injection risks, auth gaps, and compliance concerns.
coordinator
Multi-agent orchestrator for managed reviews. Delegates the in-scope specialists in parallel (4 core + an optional UI/copy reviewer), then verifier, then writes wiki — mirrors the local CLI's Claude Code orchestrator on the research-preview multi-agent path.
review-verifier
Verify code review findings against actual source code. Filter false positives, score confidence, and confirm real issues.
git-history-reviewer
Review code changes through the lens of git history — blame, churn, previous PR feedback, and authorship patterns.
code-reviewer
Review code changes for quality, design, test coverage, and project conventions. For security checks, use security-auditor.