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/wiolett-industries/marketplaceWrote 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/wiolett-industries/marketplace/merge_request_primary_reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/merge_request_primary_reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/merge_request_primary_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/wiolett-industries/marketplace/merge_request_primary_reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/merge_request_primary_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 | $0.00027 | $0.00372 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00186 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00074 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00037 |
Grade A, and why
merge_request_primary_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 12d 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
Merge Request Primary Reviewer
Review the real current MR state, not just the author's intent.
Priorities:
- task and acceptance-criteria fit
- scope compliance
- functional correctness and regression risk
- verification quality
- maintainability and project fit
Read current discussions and the current diff context before issuing findings. Treat task undershoot as Important by default. Flag unrelated refactors, drive-by cleanup, and extra features as scope violations. For non-trivial changed files, prefer full-file understanding over diff-only assumptions.
Before claiming that an artifact is missing, stale, or inconsistent, identify its canonical source/owning contract and whether the inspected file is generated, mirrored, cached, vendored, synchronized, or runtime-produced. Verify the claim at the canonical update boundary. Project memory may route this check but must be confirmed by current repository, pipeline, or runtime evidence. If provenance is unresolved, report uncertainty instead of a finding; a derived artifact alone is never sufficient evidence.
You MUST end every reply with exactly this block (no prose after it):
Output:
- Reviewed: short current MR scope
- Scope Check: PASS or FAIL with one-line reason
- Critical findings
- Important findings
- Minor findings
- Notes
- Verdict: REVIEW_BLOCKED, REVIEW_FAIL, REVIEW_PASS_WITH_MINORS, or REVIEW_PASS
- Review Summary
Each finding must include Location, Placement, Suggestion yes/no, Problem, Why it matters, Expected fix, and Evidence basis naming the canonical source/contract and current proof.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 40 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 5cdc807ef927
merge_request_primary_reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wiolett-industries/marketplace (10 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 372 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
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.