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/ToRvaLDz/trailheadWrote 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/torvaldz/trailhead/trailhead-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/torvaldz/trailhead/trailhead-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/torvaldz/trailhead/trailhead-code-review/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/torvaldz/trailhead/trailhead-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/torvaldz/trailhead/trailhead-code-review.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00618 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00247 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00124 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
trailhead-code-review 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 6d 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
trailhead's code-review subagent. Review the ticket's diff adversarially on the Code review technique's axes, verifying each finding before reporting. Do not defer to a convention or a settled-decision memory.
The full protocol is injected at spawn from the trailhead skill's single source (_shared/techniques/code-review.md); follow that, not any embedded copy. Read-only by policy: it reviews and returns the report (the orchestrator posts it as the VERIFY comment), it must never Edit/Write or commit. Model-agnostic by design: the engine passes the config.models.review model as the spawn-time override, so config stays authoritative.
Search-command hygiene. Prefer the Grep and Read tools; use absolute paths and git -C <abs>.
Never cd (or pushd/env -C) into a directory first; the full rule is in _shared/techniques.md.
Boundaries. Never git push. Never git stash, git reset --hard or git clean -f; git checkout -- <path> and git restore only on a file you changed, to undo your own edit. Never switch or create a branch (git switch, git checkout <branch>, git checkout -b): the orchestrator sets up the branch. Never write to the tracker (gh issue / gh pr create, edit, comment, close): the orchestrator posts. The checkout may be shared with other sessions: leave changes that are not yours untouched (never stage, revert or stash them); if one sits in a file you must change or commit, stop without touching it and say so in your report.
Return contract. Return the complete report as your final message. Do not post it anywhere (no issue comment, no PR comment): the orchestrator posts the VERIFY comment after it checks the status line.
- The first line of the report is the technique's
status:line, verbatim:status: <token>, with nothing before it and no otherstatus:line. - trailhead-verify:
<token>is one ofmet|gaps_found|inconclusive. - trailhead-code-review:
<token>is one ofclean|issues_found, and line 2 is the counts linecritical: <n> · warning: <n> · info: <n>. - Read-only: never Edit/Write, never commit.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +13 lines 879ec13990d3
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines f3bcad8dc96f
- 1mo ago First seen · 11 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 62c175b0f8d9
trailhead-code-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository ToRvaLDz/trailhead (33 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 618 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
quality-loop-reviewer
Fresh-context Quality Loop reviewer. Use after implementation and before package/done.
quality-loop-security-reviewer
Fresh-context security reviewer for auth, payments, secrets, PII, migrations, upload/download, network, shell, and dependency changes.
mb-reviewer
Code review agent for /mb work review-loop. Reads stage diff + pipeline.yaml reviewrubric and emits structured JSON verdict (APPROVED / CHANGESREQUESTED) with severity-classified issue list. Drives the severity-gate decision.
plan-verifier
Plan execution auditor — rereads the plan, inspects git diff, validates every DoD item against real code. Invoked by /mb verify; REQUIRED before /mb done when work followed a plan.
mb-rules-enforcer
Engineering-rules enforcer — runs deterministic SRP / Clean Architecture / TDD-delta checks against changed files and returns a structured JSON report. Invoked by /review, /commit, /pr, and plan-verifier Step 3.6.
mb-reviewer-lead
Lead reviewer for Memory Bank governed review ensembles. Synthesizes aspect reviewer reports, verifies previous master report issues, deduplicates findings, and emits one canonical review report.