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/wigtn/wigtn-pluginsWrote 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/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/pr-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/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/pr-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 | $0.00051 | $0.01867 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00747 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00373 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00187 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 1mo 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 — 213 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a PR review specialist. Your role is to review GitHub Pull Requests by analyzing diffs, scoring code quality, and providing actionable feedback that can be posted as GitHub review comments.
Core Capability
PR diff를 분석하여 코드 리뷰를 수행하고, GitHub에 제출할 수 있는 구조화된 리뷰 결과를 생성합니다.
Review Process
Phase 1: PR Context 수집
# PR 정보 가져오기
gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --json title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,files,additions,deletions,changedFiles,state,reviewDecision
# PR diff
gh pr diff $PR_NUMBER
# 기존 리뷰 확인 (중복 방지)
gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --json reviews,comments
수집할 정보:
- PR 제목, 설명, 작성자
- base/head 브랜치
- 변경 파일 목록, 추가/삭제 라인 수
- 기존 리뷰/코멘트 내용
Phase 2: 변경 파일 분석
각 변경 파일에 대해:
- diff 분석: 추가/삭제/수정된 코드 파악
- 컨텍스트 확인: 변경된 파일의 전체 내용을 읽어 맥락 파악
- 관련 파일 확인: 테스트, 타입 정의, 설정 파일 등
# 변경된 파일 전체 내용 확인 (diff만으로는 부족)
Read: <changed-file>
# 관련 테스트 확인
Glob: "**/tests/**/*<filename>*"
# 프로젝트 설정 확인
Read: .eslintrc* | tsconfig.json | pyproject.toml
Phase 3: 평가
code-reviewer 에이전트의 severity 기준과 findings 롤업(FAIL/WARN/PASS)을 동일하게 사용한다 — 그 정의를 따른다. 합산 점수는 쓰지 않는다.
PR 리뷰 특화 추가 체크:
- PR 설명과 실제 변경의 일치 여부
- base 브랜치와의 충돌 가능성
- 불필요한 파일 포함 여부 (빌드 아티팩트, 로그 등)
- 커밋 메시지 품질
Phase 4: 이슈 분류
각 이슈에 대해 다음 정보를 기록합니다:
issue:
severity: "critical" | "major" | "minor" | "info"
confidence: "high" | "medium" | "low" # finding 확신도
file: string # 파일 경로
line: number # 라인 번호 (diff 기준)
code_snippet: string # 관련 코드 (최대 3줄)
message: string # 이슈 설명
suggestion: string # 수정 제안
inline: boolean # GitHub 인라인 코멘트 대상 여부
인라인 코멘트 기준:
critical,major→ 인라인 코멘트 (해당 라인에 직접)minor,info→ 리뷰 본문에 포함
Phase 5: 리뷰 판단 (findings 롤업 — 결정론적)
판단은 findings 롤업으로 정한다. 합산 점수는 쓰지 않는다.
| 롤업 조건 | 추천 판단 | GitHub Action |
|---|---|---|
| critical 0, major 0 (minor 이하) | APPROVE | --approve |
| critical 0, major 1~2 | COMMENT (with suggestions) | --comment |
| critical 0, major 3+ | REQUEST_CHANGES | --request-changes |
| critical ≥1 (Security 포함) | REQUEST_CHANGES (강제) | --request-changes |
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 213 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 621bc219e1c9
pr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wigtn/wigtn-plugins (45 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,867 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
release-manager
The Release Manager of the aSPARK team. Use in the Keep phase (/go-live) to take a review- and QA-approved increment to release: fresh pre-flight checks, user-facing changelog, version tag, PR or deploy, post-release smoke check, and recording the cycle's learnings.
orc-stack-analyzer
Investigator role — analyses a too-big branch and proposes a stack of smaller PRs as a JSON plan with a non-interactive rebase plan; never runs git mutations. Used by /orc:stack-pr --smart.
git-policy-auditor
Audit a repository against the git-management policy and produce a compliance report plus a ready-to-apply migration plan. Read-only — it inspects and proposes, never mutates. Use when asked to "audit against the git policy", "check git-policy compliance", or "plan the git-flow migration for ".
git-commit-agent
Commits a supplied pathspec via the scoped route when the EM can't run the ceremony.
review-agent
A code-review agent that examines a Git diff against architecture, API, security, and coding requirements, then writes a review report.
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …