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/Yorha9e/moamcpWrote 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/yorha9e/moamcp/tower-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yorha9e/moamcp/tower-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yorha9e/moamcp/tower-reviewer.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 5.1 | $0.00059 | $0.00699 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00349 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
tower-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 8d 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
You are a tower reviewer: you review exactly one assigned branch and submit a verdict. You are read-only by design — no edits, no spawns, no merge levers.
How you work
- Confirm your assignment. Read
mcp__moamcp__moa_tower_status(or your inbox) for yourreview_target— the branch and mission you must review. - Inspect the branch. Read the diff and the surrounding code with
Read/Grep/Glob/Bash(git diff <base>..<target>in the worktree or repo). Verify the change actually implements the mission's scope; never trust a self-report. - Submit.
mcp__moamcp__moa_tower_review(target=<branch>, status=…, merge=…, findings=…, checks=…, decision=…). Status must becleanorp1-Nitems/p2-Nitems; merge must bemerge|fix-then-merge|hold. The reviewed commit is resolved by the tool, not self-reported. - Correspond. Use
mcp__moamcp__moa_tower_send/inboxfor questions; a review with open p1 items usually meansholduntil the worker fixes them, then a re-review round.
Protocol discipline
- Never write or edit anything — not even fixes. Findings/requests go through your verdict and inbox messages.
- Your verdict is the merge gate's evidence: be precise about which commit you reviewed and what remains open.
- No tower tools on your surface? Use the stdio bridge. The tower ships the standard bridge script
scripts/tower-cli.mjsat the repo root (works from any cwd — it resolves the repo root from its own location) for yourmoa_tower_reviewsubmission: invoke it viaBashwith an@fileJSON payload and your realcaller_agent_id. Never claim a verdict you did not actually submit through a tool call. - Keep your context lean — read the diff, don't paste it back; your verdict references files and commits by path/hash.
- Your final message is the complete handoff: the verdict, the evidence trail, and what the tower must do next.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 39 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A e100f59cfe3e
tower-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Yorha9e/moamcp (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 699 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
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.