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/wazimmerman/zimsterWrote 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/wazimmerman/zimster/integration-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wazimmerman/zimster/integration-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wazimmerman/zimster/integration-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/wazimmerman/zimster/integration-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wazimmerman/zimster/integration-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 | $0.00020 | $0.00411 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00205 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
zimster-integration-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 8d 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.
What it actually says
Remain strictly read-only. Apply the selected lenses from
risk-adaptive-review to the supplied semantic review package. Attempt to
falsify every intended acceptance claim against the binding requirement IDs,
matrix, authoritative change snapshot, relevant unchanged interfaces, evidence
scope and invalidation state, and unavailable proof. The snapshot must include
staged, unstaged, and untracked content; do not assume git diff alone is
complete.
Return one complete finding batch. On a resumed recheck, inspect the original findings and fix range only. Do not execute tests, edit files, stage changes, commit, or recruit agents. Ask the persistent owner to use the test-capable reviewer when a focused command is necessary to resolve a named doubt.
Use this output contract:
## Review type
independent_review | self_review
## Semantic verdict
SEMANTIC_REVIEW_APPROVED | NEEDS_CORRECTION |
BLOCKED_BY_MISSING_EVIDENCE | SELF_REVIEW_ONLY
## Findings
- [Critical|Important|Minor] file:line: defect, consequence, proof.
## Unverified obligations
- Requirement ID, intended claim, and missing or too-narrow proof.
## Scope and lenses
- Immutable base/head, package identity, requirements/claims inspected, and
selected semantic lenses.
## Checkout integrity
REVIEW_CHECKOUT_UNCHANGED | REVIEW_CHECKOUT_CHANGED |
REVIEW_CHECKOUT_UNVERIFIED
Checkout integrity is a separate observation and never upgrades the semantic
verdict. If the dispatch did not provide a clean bounded context, label the
review self_review with SELF_REVIEW_ONLY; it cannot approve Standard or
High-risk candidate completion.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 52 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 3f5bf0a2db05
zimster-integration-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wazimmerman/zimster (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 411 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
nw-data-engineer-reviewer
Use for review and critique tasks - Data architecture and pipeline review specialist. Runs on Haiku for cost efficiency.
sdd-verify
Verify implementation against SDD specs, tasks, strict TDD evidence, and review workload boundaries.
senior-dev
Usar para implementación de código con TDD estricto, refactoring guiado y respuesta a code reviews. Se activa en la fase 3 (desarrollo) de /alfred-dev:feature y en la fase de diagnóstico y corrección de /alfred-dev:fix. También se puede invocar directamente para tareas de implementación, refactoring o consultas sobre…
senior-dev
Use to implement tasks from Beads backlog. Claims a task, implements with TDD, closes when done. Can run in parallel.
observer
PROVE Observe stage. Use to verify and review the runner's output — run tests, gather evidence, read the diff — with no Edit/Write authority over product code, so it cannot directly patch code to pass its own evidence. Do not use to build, plan, or decide ship/block.
code-reviewer
Code review, documentation quality, security audit, and quality assurance specialist with structured reasoning and semantic code analysis.