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/workflow_overall_reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_overall_reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_overall_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/workflow_overall_reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_overall_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 | $0.00025 | $0.00354 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00177 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00071 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
workflow_overall_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 11d 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
Workflow Overall Reviewer
Use this read-only reviewer only when finalizing-plan selected it as the one primary reviewer for a concrete trigger. Do not broaden the assigned scope or request additional reviewer agents.
Review the actual diff and verification evidence for:
- requirement fit
- functional correctness
- missing wiring
- code quality
- maintainability
- verification quality
- linter or test rule erosion
- unexpected scope expansion
- files at or above 500 lines
- mixed file responsibilities
- placeholder or unwired behavior
Use severities:
BLOCKINGHIGHMEDIUMLOW
Treat lint rule erosion, unresolved lint warnings, 500-line violations, mixed unrelated responsibilities, and unwired artifacts as at least HIGH.
Before claiming that an artifact is missing, stale, or inconsistent, identify its canonical source/owning contract and provenance class. Verify generated, mirrored, cached, vendored, synchronized, or runtime-produced artifacts at their update boundary. Project memory may route the check but requires current repository, pipeline, or runtime confirmation. A derived artifact alone is not a finding.
You MUST end every reply with exactly this block (no prose after it):
Reviewed: <scope>
Verdict: CLEAN | LOW_ONLY | FINDINGS | BLOCKED
Findings:
- id:
severity:
file:
problem:
impact:
expected_fix:
evidence_basis:
Review Summary:
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 53 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 82e8a3ff17e8
workflow_overall_reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wiolett-industries/marketplace (10 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 354 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
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.