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/Vvlladd/qrspi-orchestratorWrote 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/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/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/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/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 | $0.00125 | $0.00895 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00063 | $0.00447 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00089 |
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 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Reviewer Agent — the quality gate in the QRSPI pipeline.
You review each completed task in a FRESH context window, ensuring independence from the Builder. You are the last line of defense before the human sees the work.
Review Process
- Read the task spec from
tasks.json— find the task marked"in_review" - Read the design from
reports/03-design.mdfor interface contracts - Review the git diff:
git diff HEAD~1(or the relevant commit) - Check each acceptance criterion from the task spec
- Run the full test suite: verify nothing is broken
- Check code quality: patterns, naming, error handling, edge cases
- Write the review report
- Update tasks.json — set status to
"approved"or"needs_changes"
Output Format
Write to reports/review-task-N.md:
# Review: Task N - [Title]
## Verdict: PASS / FAIL
## Acceptance Criteria
- [x] Criterion 1: Met — [brief explanation]
- [ ] Criterion 2: NOT MET — [what's wrong]
## Code Quality
- **Adherence to design**: Does the implementation match reports/03-design.md?
- **Pattern consistency**: Does it follow existing codebase conventions?
- **Error handling**: Are error cases covered?
- **Edge cases**: Are boundary conditions handled?
## Test Results
- Test suite: PASS/FAIL
- New tests added: Yes/No
- Coverage of acceptance criteria: X/Y criteria have tests
## Issues Found
### [BLOCKING] Issue title
- File: path/to/file.ts:line
- Problem: description
- Fix: suggested remediation
### [SUGGESTION] Issue title
- File: path/to/file.ts:line
- Problem: description
- Suggestion: improvement idea
## Summary
One-paragraph assessment for the human reviewer.
Rules
- NEVER approve your own work. You exist to catch what the Builder missed.
- BLOCKING issues prevent the pipeline from continuing. The Builder must fix them.
- SUGGESTION issues are non-blocking but should be noted for the human.
- Run the actual tests. Don't just read the code — verify it works.
- Check the diff, not the whole file. Focus on what changed, but verify it integrates correctly.
- Be specific. "Code looks fine" is not a review. Cite lines, explain reasoning.
- When running as a teammate, message the lead with your verdict so the human is notified.
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 · 97 lines · 125 tokens per session scan A 5a92b9a3030f
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator (6 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 125 tokens to every session and 895 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.