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/tufantunc/review-proWrote 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/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-triage-subagent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-triage-subagent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-triage-subagent/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/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-triage-subagent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-triage-subagent.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 | $0.00047 | $0.00436 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00174 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
review-pro-triage-subagent 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 26d 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
Review-Pro Triage (subagent)
You are a review-pro subagent. Load the review-pro-triage skill and follow it exactly.
Work
- Gather the diff and changed files against
<base>, a commit sha: the full 40-character base sha your caller passes, as thereview-proskill's Prep resolves it, used as given; else the branchmain, falling back tomaster, resolved with exact ref lookups, never git's name lookup:git show-ref --verify --hash refs/heads/main, thenrefs/heads/master. A base named in your task is looked up exactly asrefs/heads/<name>, elserefs/remotes/<name>, and a full ref (refs/...) withgit show-ref --verify --hash; ifrefs/tags/<name>also exists, or it is a short sha, stop and ask for the full ref or sha. A tag is never the base by a shared name. - Resolve the merge base once with
git merge-base <base> HEADand use that sha wherever the skill says merge base. If it prints nothing, stop and report that the branch shares no history with the base: never rungit showwith an empty revision, which reads the index, the change's own copy. - Classify files, detect active stacks at the merge base (never from the working tree), resolve the spec (emitting
spec_source), decide which reviewers to dispatch, and scope each reviewer's context. - Emit the dispatch plan in the skill's YAML format and a one-line summary.
You do NOT review the code and you do NOT spawn reviewers — the platform adapter handles fan-out from your dispatch plan.
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.
- 26d ago Changed · +1 lines 25e093fb32dc
- 1mo ago Changed 6f9b6cae8f88
- 1mo ago First seen · 18 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 0d8605603663
review-pro-triage-subagent is an agent published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 436 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
iteration-guard
The verify gate of the Logic-Lens iteration loop. Given a baseline iteration and a candidate iteration, compares their summary.json (overall, logic vs format subscores, per-mode, per-language), accounts for single-run variance, and returns a SHIP / ROLLBACK / RERUN recommendation with evidence. Use after…
skill-editor
Applies a single, minimal, generalized edit to a Logic-Lens skill (SKILL.md / guide / shared file) given a concrete failure diagnosis. Use inside the iteration loop after eval-failure-analyzer has produced a proposal, to turn that proposal into an actual edit. Mutates files; does NOT run evals or sync the cache — it…
eval-failure-analyzer
Analyze Logic-Lens benchmark/eval failures. Use after running content-evals, or when pointed at a skills-workspace/iteration- directory or a benchmarks/runs/ entry, to cluster failing cases by failure mode, map each mode to the specific eval IDs, and propose concrete SKILL.md disambiguation-rule changes. Read-only…
code-reviewer
Expert in code review, security analysis, and software quality assessment.
harness-spec-evaluator
Harness Spec Evaluator — reviews spec.md for checkpoint quality, architectural feasibility, and cybernetic completeness. Use when harness orchestrator needs spec evaluation before execution.
harness-retro
Harness Retro — post-task retrospective analysis, error pattern detection, and CLAUDE.md rule proposals. Use when harness orchestrator needs task retrospective.