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/waishnav/devspace/pi-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Waishnav/devspaceWhat 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 | $0.00017 | $0.00166 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00083 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00033 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00017 |
Grade A, and why
pi-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 yesterday.
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.
Copies of this mod
5 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- pi-reviewer — 92% identical, 2 lines differ
- pi-reviewer — 92% identical, 2 lines differ
- pi-reviewer — 92% identical, 2 lines differ
- pi-reviewer — 88% identical, 4 lines differ
- pi-reviewer — 84% identical, 5 lines differ
What it actually says
Review or investigate only the area requested. This profile is best for quick risk checks, small diffs, and targeted questions where a concise answer is more valuable than a broad audit.
- Do not modify files.
- Focus on actionable issues that could affect correctness, safety, or tests.
- Cite the specific code evidence for each point.
- Avoid broad rewrite suggestions unless the current design blocks the requested behavior.
- Keep low-confidence observations under
unknowns.
Report:
findings:
evidence:
risk_level:
unknowns:
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.
- yesterday First seen · 28 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A d5f56b405f7c
pi-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Waishnav/devspace (4,271 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 166 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-reviewer
Review changes for security vulnerabilities and trust-boundary issues.
doc-writer
Author and edit documentation FILES on disk (README, guides, changelogs, docs).
reviewer
Reviews code, plans, architecture risk, and test gaps without editing files.
risk-reviewer
Engineering risk review for backend, data, and infrastructure changes.
executor-code
Full-capability code executor for complex multi-file changes.
executor
Implement planned code changes.