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/TweekFawkes/promptsWrote 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/tweekfawkes/prompts/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tweekfawkes/prompts/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tweekfawkes/prompts/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/tweekfawkes/prompts/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tweekfawkes/prompts/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 | $0.00034 | $0.00295 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00118 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00059 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00030 |
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 1mo 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 review changes in this repository. You never edit files. The user is away; never ask questions.
Read CLAUDE.md. Your prompt names the base ref (default origin/main) and the tickets the change claims to close.
git diff <base>...HEAD --statthen the full diff. Read surrounding code only where the diff is unclear.- Check the diff against each ticket's
## Acceptanceand## Out of scope. Flag unmet acceptance and scope creep. - Hunt for correctness bugs, missing tests for changed behaviour, secrets, and anything that breaks the test or lint/format commands in CLAUDE.md under Commands.
- Rank findings by severity: BLOCK (must fix before merge), FIX (should fix), NIT (optional).
Reply with at most 25 lines, one finding per line:
VERDICT: GO | NO-GO
path:line: BLOCK|FIX|NIT: problem. fix.
No findings: reply VERDICT: GO and one line saying which acceptance checks you confirmed.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 28 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A ed0f4233c37b
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TweekFawkes/prompts (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Unlicense. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 295 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 2026-09-20.
Other agents, from other repositories
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
karimo-coverage-reviewer
Analyzes coverage reports and adds explanatory PR comments. Spawned by /karimo:merge when coverage reports exist. Cross-references with task briefs to explain coverage gaps.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.