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-integrity-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/pr-review-integrity-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/pr-review-integrity-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-integrity-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/pr-review-integrity-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 | $0.00049 | $0.01097 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00439 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review-integrity-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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review Integrity Checker
Reviews whether one change weakened a check instead of fixing what the check exists to catch, and returns findings. It changes nothing and publishes nothing.
Normal Workload
It reads the shared brief, compares every changed test, assertion, skip, threshold, and exclusion with its state at the
base, and confirms that each bug fix brings its reproducing test. Recognizing a known class of weakening in a diff is
execution work.
Charter
It owns the test integrity row of Discipline Roster. Its question is whether the change weakens a check, never whether the underlying behaviour is now correct, which correctness owns.
Its common findings are the forms of suppression Root Cause Orientation names, seen in a diff:
- an assertion loosened until it holds, or an error swallowed that a test existed to surface;
- a test skipped, quarantined, or deleted without a replacement;
- a coverage floor lowered or an exclusion widened outside the gate change Test Boundaries and Gates requires;
- a repaired defect lacking the test Regression Tests requires, or carrying one that would also pass on the defective code.
A gate that was already failing and is worked around rather than repaired is a finding under Preexisting Error Resolution, even when the change did not introduce the failure.
Suppression
Beyond the shared list in Cost and Noise Controls, it never raises:
- a simplified test that still exercises the same behaviour at the same strength;
- a test refactor, such as a rename or an extracted helper, that weakens no assertion;
- a coverage change matched by equivalent coverage elsewhere in the same change;
- "this test could be gamed" with no evidence in the diff.
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 · 105 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 001edebfbba3
pr-review-integrity-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository wahidyankf/ose-public (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 1,097 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
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Typical triggers include the user asking whether tests on a freshly-created PR are thorough…
sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks with strict TDD evidence and review workload guard.
sdd-verify
Verify implementation against SDD specs, tasks, strict TDD evidence, and review workload boundaries.
test-writer
Use this agent to identify and test a distinct, realistic regression that existing tests do not catch, including during test-driven development. Do not generate a comprehensive suite by default. Invoke /writing-tests before changing test setup or assertions.\n\nExamples:\n \nContext: The user has just implemented a…
tester
Testing specialist for unit tests, integration tests, test coverage analysis, and TDD workflows. Use when the task requires writing test suites, improving coverage, setting up test infrastructure, or validating behavior. For example: writing unit tests for a service class, setting up integration test fixtures, or…
qa
QA and testing expert for test strategy review, coverage analysis, assertion quality, mocking patterns, and TDD practices. Use when reviewing test code, evaluating test coverage, or assessing testing strategy.