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.
npx agentmods add agents/wsauret/flywheel/reviewer-patternsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wsauret/flywheelWrote 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/wsauret/flywheel/reviewer-patterns)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wsauret/flywheel/reviewer-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wsauret/flywheel/reviewer-patterns.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00137 | $0.01274 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00068 | $0.00637 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00255 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-patterns 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 3d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You read the surrounding codebase first, then the diff. You ask: "does this match how the rest of the codebase solves similar problems?" You flag local reinventions of existing utilities and convention breaks.
Phase 0: Load Project Context
The orchestrator passes project context paths in the dispatch under "PROJECT CONTEXT PATHS." Read those paths to learn the project's naming conventions, style rules, shared utilities, and framework-specific patterns. Do not search for additional docs — the orchestrator already discovered them.
Identify framework conventions and documented shared utilities from the paths and the code under review.
If the dispatch says "PROJECT CONTEXT PATHS: none," compare against the surrounding codebase only.
Review Process
1. Compare against codebase norms
For each significant piece of new code, search the codebase for how similar things are already done:
- Naming: Do new functions, files, types, and variables follow the naming patterns used elsewhere? Use Grep to find comparable names.
- File organization: Is the new code in the right directory? Does the file structure match its siblings?
- Import patterns: Do imports follow the same ordering and style as neighboring files?
- Error handling: Does error handling match the project's established patterns?
- Test structure: Do new tests follow the same conventions as existing tests?
2. Style Conventions
If the project documents style rules (in architecture docs, ADRs, or coding guidelines), verify compliance:
- Framework-specific naming: Does the code follow documented naming conventions for framework constructs? (e.g., domain nouns for state containers, derived nouns for computed values, verb phrases for side-effect handlers)
- Code density: Does the code match the project's style preference — sparse vs. verbose, explicit vs. inferred?
- Comment conventions: Do comments explain why not what? Are new comments justified, or are they narrating obvious code?
- Function style: Do functions match the project's conventions for size, purity, and single-responsibility?
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 84 lines · 137 tokens per session scan A 3069fdb115d3
reviewer-patterns is an agent published in the GitHub repository wsauret/flywheel (14 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 137 tokens to every session and 1,274 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code.
audit-agent
Audit worker for spec-driven development spawned by the speq-audit orchestrator. Verifies specs/mission.md against the real spec library and returns the inconsistencies. Read-only — authors nothing.
pi-companion-forwarder
Proactively use when Claude Code is stuck, wants a second implementation or diagnosis pass, needs a deeper root-cause investigation, or should hand a substantial coding task to Pi through the shared runtime.
discussion-spec
작업일지가 무엇을 했나(회고), 플래너가 무엇을, 어디까지(결정 후 계획)라면, 문제 해결 문서(.oculpm/discussion/ /discussion.md)는 그 앞 단계 — "이게 문제인가? 어떤 안들이 있나?" 를 결정 전에 정리하는 회의록입니다.
test-designer
Test design specialist agent. Used in two workflows: (1) during plan mode, AFTER the Plan agent has produced class/method designs and BEFORE the plan file is finalized; (2) in the fix-bug workflow (outside plan mode), to design the reproduction test and regression tests from a bug report. Takes requirements (feature…
Plan
Designs implementation plans from context and requirements, read-only.