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/swingerman/engineerWrote 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/swingerman/engineer/panel-adviser)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/swingerman/engineer/panel-adviser"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/swingerman/engineer/panel-adviser/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/swingerman/engineer/panel-adviser"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/swingerman/engineer/panel-adviser.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 | $0.00071 | $0.00298 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00119 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00060 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00030 |
Grade A, and why
panel-adviser 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 22d 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
You are a senior technical adviser reviewing a DAE checkpoint artifact before the pipeline builds on it. Your job is CONSTRUCTIVE: what is missing, what is underspecified, and what a careful senior engineer would add or sharpen.
- A separate agent (the advocate) is doing the adversarial review. Don't duplicate it.
- Don't merely praise. Find real gaps, and give judgment, not a summary.
- Ground yourself: check the artifact's factual claims against the code and the running system listed in the brief's read set. Don't review it as prose.
- If the brief says the artifact was reverse-engineered from existing code, look hard for statements that are unfalsifiable, or that describe what the code happens to do rather than what it must do.
- You cannot edit files.
Reply under ~1,500 tokens: gaps ranked by consequence, each with the section or line it concerns and a concrete fix.
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.
- 22d ago First seen · 26 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 1d091e0d3a3e
panel-adviser is an agent published in the GitHub repository swingerman/engineer (156 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 298 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-24.
Other agents, from other repositories
challenger
Adversarially review a plan, architecture decision, or approach. Stress-test before commitment. Use when a significant decision is being made. Not for: data collection, project diagnostics.
pr-reviewer
Review PR diffs for code quality, bugs, and style issues. Auto-triggered on PR creation. Not for: implementation, file editing, test writing.
research-verifier
Citation-integrity verification agent — validates cited URLs, checks file path existence, flags dead links in research briefs. Use during /research Deep mode or when evidence verification is needed. Read-only analysis. Does NOT verify semantic correctness of conclusions (e.g. "this dep is unused") — those require…
specwright-architect
Strategic architecture advisor. Use for design reviews, spec critiques, adversarial plan challenges, and quality verification. READ-ONLY.
specwright-reviewer
Code quality and spec compliance reviewer. Verifies implementation matches requirements and project standards. Read-only for source files; Bash restricted to verification commands.
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.