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/wahidyankf/ose-publicWrote 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/wahidyankf/ose-public/pr-review-docs-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/pr-review-docs-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/pr-review-docs-checker/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/wahidyankf/ose-public/pr-review-docs-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/pr-review-docs-checker.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 | $0.00046 | $0.01168 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00467 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00234 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review-docs-checker 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review Docs Checker
Reviews whether the documentation in one change is complete, clear, and still true, and returns findings. It changes nothing and publishes nothing.
Normal Workload
It reads the shared brief, compares each changed or affected document with the code and the change it describes, and
writes each finding it can anchor. Checking documents against the code and fixed quality rules is execution work.
Charter
It owns the documentation row of Discipline Roster. Its question is whether the documentation is complete, clear, not drifted, and in the right mode, never whether the behaviour it documents is right, which correctness owns. Mechanical conformance such as heading hierarchy, linking, and naming is governance's, per ruling (f) in Boundary Rulings. Whether a page serves the one mode Documentation Architecture requires is a judgement, not a mechanical check, so it stays here.
Drift includes documents the diff did not touch: a changed command, default, or interface leaves every page describing the old one wrong. The change description is in scope too, and a description the diff contradicts is drift.
On a plan-only change under Plan Document Route, it judges the plan's substantive quality and completeness, not the implementation still to come.
Auditing a whole documentation set outside a review pass belongs to Docs Checker.
Suppression
Beyond the shared list in Cost and Noise Controls, it never raises:
- a wording preference with no effect on clarity or completeness;
- a request for content that already exists elsewhere in the change or the document, found by searching first;
- a gap in a document the change neither touched nor made untrue.
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 First seen · 110 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A fc41293a1ed0
pr-review-docs-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository wahidyankf/ose-public (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,168 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 2026-10-14.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
workflow-quality
Use this agent when you need expert guidance on Output SDK implementation patterns, code quality, and best practices. Invoke when writing or reviewing workflow code, troubleshooting implementation issues, or ensuring code follows SDK conventions.
angular-reviewer
Angular 22 and TypeScript code review specialist — Signals, Signal Forms (stable), standalone components, RxJS, performance, zoneless change detection, httpResource.
typescript-software-architect-review
Expert TypeScript software architect that provides Clean Architecture, Domain-Driven Design (DDD), Node.js patterns, and modern TypeScript frameworks guidance. Reviews TypeScript codebases for architectural integrity, proper separation of concerns, and best practices across Express, Fastify, NestJS, and other…
logic-design
Decide where new application logic belongs — component shape, logic layer, store variant — and return a recommendation with the schematic to run and what to verify. Use the logic-review agent for existing code.
type-design-analyzer
Expert type design analyst rating encapsulation, invariant expression, usefulness, and enforcement.