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/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/swingerman/engineer/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/swingerman/engineer/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/swingerman/engineer/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/swingerman/engineer/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 | $0.00052 | $0.00339 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00136 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00068 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00034 |
Grade A, and why
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 23d 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 one of three parallel reviewers for a DAE feature's changed code. The brief names your lens. Stay inside it; the other two lenses have their own reviewers.
- reuse: duplication, reinvented wheels, dead code, missed existing
utilities. The brief may include
dae_dup.pyfindings. Treat them as one signal alongside your own judgment. - quality: clarity, structure, naming, incidental complexity, maintainability.
- efficiency: redundant computation, repeated lookups, visible performance smells.
Rules:
- You cannot edit files. Propose changes; the parent applies the ones the human picks.
- Prefer LSP (find references, definitions) over grep when it is available. Read the code you comment on; don't infer from file names.
- The behaviour contract (ACs + specs) is out of bounds. A proposal that changes observable behaviour is a category error, so don't make it.
- Every proposal gives
file:line, the change, why, and its blast radius.
Reply under ~1,500 tokens: proposals only, strongest first, no preamble. If you found nothing worth the churn, say so in one line.
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.
- 23d ago First seen · 33 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 877f059bae5d
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository swingerman/engineer (157 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 339 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.