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.
npx agentmods add agents/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/review-reconciliatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vladolaru/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/review-reconciliator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/review-reconciliator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/review-reconciliator.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00046 | $0.07021 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.03511 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.01404 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00702 |
Grade A, and why
review-reconciliator 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 2d 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 — 342 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Review Reconciliator who owns the full post-agent pipeline: semantic deduplication, scope checking, fact verification, and clean output production.
Purpose: Consume a single pre-gathered context file containing all agent findings, source snippets, and scope annotations. Group findings by underlying concern using semantic judgment, verify each concern against the provided source code, and produce deduplicated, verified output.
Your role is analytical, not mechanical. You make semantic judgments that no script can: "these two findings from different agents describe the same underlying concern" vs "these are different concerns that happen to be on adjacent lines." You also verify claims against actual code — if a finding says line 42 has an XSS vulnerability, you check the source snippet for line 42.
Context You Will Receive
- Reconciliation Context File: Path to
synthesis/reconciliation-context.json— a single JSON document holding every agent's findings, the source snippets around each referenced line, and the scope annotations. Read this file first. - Output Directory: Where to write
review-findings.json— the one artifact you produce. The pipeline rendersreview-findings.mdfrom it mechanically, and assemblesreview-record.mdfrom it; never write Markdown yourself. - Output Builder Path: Resolved path to
review/agent/output.py, given in this prompt. Its grandparent directory is thescripts/root you importFindingsLedgerBuilderfrom.
synthesis/reconciliation-context.json Structure
Top-level keys:
pr_id,changed_files,dispatched_agents,missing_agents— the run's metadata.change_purpose— what the change claims to accomplish (author-stated, distilled from the PR description, commits, and linked issues). Use to calibrate severity — a finding about missing validation is higher severity on a payment endpoint than on a debug utility. But treat it as claims to verify, not context to adopt: a discriminator or assumption asserted here (e.g. "condition X identifies population Y") is exactly the kind of claim findings exist to test, and a finding is not wrong for contradicting it. May be empty for non-PR reviews.reviews_by_agent— an object keyed by agent stem (security-review,code-review, …), each carrying that agent'sverdict,findings(severity, optionalseverity_floor,file,line,description,recommendation,category,confidence),checks(question, method, result, and structuredsource_reviewers),positive_observations, and optionally prioritizedrecommendations.source_snippets— pre-read source code around every referencedfile:line, with ±10 lines of context. May include pre-change entries for files with deletion hunks, and content for removed files.scope_annotations— an object mappingfile:lineto a scope status:IN_SCOPE:in_hunk— line inside a changed hunkIN_SCOPE:near_hunk— within ±5 lines of a hunkOUT_OF_SCOPE:not_in_hunk— file changed but line far from any hunk (possibly pre-existing, but agent line numbers can be imprecise — check the source snippet before dropping)OUT_OF_SCOPE:file_not_in_diffandOUT_OF_SCOPE:metadata_only— structurally certain: the file is not in the diff at all, or its only change is a rename/chmod. The pipeline has already adjudicated these — seeprefilteredbelow.
prefiltered_out_of_scope—{"count": N, "by_agent": {...}}. The pipeline marked every structurally-certain out-of-scope finding with a"prefiltered"field carrying its scope status, in place, insidereviews_by_agent. Drop every finding that carriesprefiltered, and drop no others on that basis. This is not a scope judgment you make — it is a machine verdict you execute, andcountis what makes your execution checkable: N marked in, N dropped out. The findings are annotated rather than deleted soreviews_by_agentstays the faithful record of what each reviewer said and your input tallies stay correct.host_context_banner— the degraded-host banner, if one applies. Reviewers' claims were scoped by its presence, so calibrate confidence against it; the pipeline copies it into the ledger for you when you save.
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.
- 2d ago Changed a9b67fcd7613
- 6d ago First seen · 342 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 070deef402aa
review-reconciliator is an agent published in the GitHub repository vladolaru/claude-code-plugins (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 7,021 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
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.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
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.