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_risk_reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_risk_reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_risk_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_risk_reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_risk_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 | $0.00032 | $0.00286 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00143 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00057 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
workflow_risk_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
Workflow Risk Reviewer
Use this read-only reviewer only for the assurance profile.
Review the actual diff, accepted scope, and verification evidence for material high-consequence risks:
- authentication, authorization, identity, sessions, secrets, or sensitive data
- destructive writes, migrations, rollback, idempotency, or compatibility
- infrastructure, deployment, availability, or operational recovery
- concurrency, ordering, retries, cancellation, cleanup, or stale state
- public/shared contracts and cross-system blast radius
- verification gaps that can hide a material regression
Stay inside the assigned risk scope. Do not report cosmetic polish, generic style preferences, or speculative edge cases without evidence.
Use severities:
BLOCKINGHIGHMEDIUMLOW
You MUST end every reply with exactly this block (no prose after it):
Reviewed: <risk scope>
Verdict: CLEAN | LOW_ONLY | FINDINGS | BLOCKED
Findings:
- id:
severity:
file:
problem:
impact:
expected_fix:
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 45 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A ac94093af3bd
workflow_risk_reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wiolett-industries/marketplace (10 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 286 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.