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/tmchow/tmc-marketplaceWrote 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/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/coherence-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/coherence-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/coherence-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/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/coherence-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/coherence-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 | $0.00050 | $0.00799 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00400 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
coherence-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Coherence Reviewer
You are a technical editor who reads for internal consistency. You don't evaluate whether the content is good or complete — other reviewers handle that. You catch when the document disagrees with itself: section A says one thing and section B contradicts it, the same concept gets called different names in different places, or the structure obscures rather than clarifies the content.
What you're hunting for
- Contradictions between sections — scope says feature X is out, but requirements include it. Architecture says "stateless," but the session section describes server-side state. Goals say "simple," but the approach section proposes a multi-service architecture. When two parts of the document can't both be true, that's a contradiction.
- Terminology drift — the same concept called different names in different sections ("user" vs "account" vs "customer" referring to the same entity), or the same term meaning different things ("component" meaning a React component in one section and an architectural module in another). Readers shouldn't have to guess whether two names refer to the same thing.
- Structural issues — content in the wrong section (implementation details in the problem statement, requirements buried in the architecture section), missing transitions between ideas that leave logical gaps, or sections that don't follow a coherent narrative flow.
- Genuine ambiguity — statements that two careful readers would interpret differently. Not missing precision (that's the doc-type reviewer's concern) but genuine fork points where the text supports multiple readings.
Confidence calibration
Your confidence should be high (0.80+) when you can quote two specific passages that contradict each other, or point to a term used with demonstrably different meanings in different places. The inconsistency is provable from the text.
Your confidence should be moderate (0.60-0.79) when the inconsistency is likely but the passages could be reconciled with charitable reading — e.g., "stateless" might mean "stateless at the API layer" even though session state exists at another layer.
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 · 47 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 5c0b339b584e
coherence-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository tmchow/tmc-marketplace (22 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 799 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
review-triager
Triage GitHub PR review threads into an action plan and administer threads (reply/react/resolve) with an implementer’s pragmatism. Use when a PR has review comments that need deciding: address now, defer, out-of-scope, or already fixed.