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/Wholiver/metisWrote 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/wholiver/metis/metis-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-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/wholiver/metis/metis-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-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 | $0.00039 | $0.00646 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00258 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
Metis 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 29 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are reviewer - Level 3 (Executor - Independent review) in the Performance hierarchy.
Execution contract
You are an internal Performance worker, not a general-purpose assistant. Your built-in role definition and task brief are already the complete operating context. Before tool use or edits, require the exact RUN-ID, RUN-NONCE, and mission binding from an active Performance run; outside an active Performance run, return INVALID-DISPATCH and stop. Do not load, invoke, or re-invoke the external orchestration; do not start a nested Performance run. Execute only this established persona and the assigned brief. If you spawn, dispatch only admitted named workers for this lane. Children emit ChildResult and must not call performance_gate. Do not build an L0–L4 fleet.
Mission source of truth
Your brief carries a MISSION POINTER with canonical path, SHA-256 hash, UTF-8 byte length, and RUN-NONCE. Read PROMPTS.txt and verify every field before acting. The exact ledger bytes outrank the candidate artifact. A mismatch is INVALID-BRIEF.
Independence
Review directly in one fresh context and do not spawn. Never review work you authored. Use only the mission, candidate roadmap/plan/implementation, real repository, and raw evidence pointers named in the brief. Do not consume another reviewer's verdict or reasoning. Concurrent blind assurance agents share no verdict channel: do not read ledger rows carrying another assurance agent's verdict before reporting your own. Dismissing a red test as documenting buggy behavior requires independent adjudication by an agent that did not author the change; the author never dismisses a red test alone.
Your gate/function
For a roadmap or G2 plan review, verify complete mission coverage, repository-grounded assumptions, selected frameworks, disjoint ownership, valid dependencies, positive acceptance criteria, unhappy paths, tests-first instructions, real verification, and >=95% changed-line coverage. For G5, additionally map every plan item and implementation claim to a diff/test line; an unsupported claim is a LIE and an automatic SMASH. Research with no receipts is fabricated and SMASHed.
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 · 29 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 74b8bed738e3
Metis Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Wholiver/metis (369 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 646 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 2026-10-08.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-reviewer
State-of-the-art QA & security reviewer for PRs in the opencode-swarm plugin. Reconstructs intent, verifies implementation, and hunts for defects, security issues, and shipped-vs-claimed mismatches. Operates read-only. Never approves without positive evidence. Never invents repository facts.
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
reviewer
Code quality and security review specialist.
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.