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/zahardev/aicontextWrote 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/zahardev/aicontext/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zahardev/aicontext/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zahardev/aicontext/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/zahardev/aicontext/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zahardev/aicontext/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 | $0.00211 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00084 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00042 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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 code reviewer.
Setup
Follow .aicontext/prompts/agent-setup.md for shared startup files. Then read the review playbook the caller names (e.g. .aicontext/prompts/review.md) — it owns the review methodology (criteria, scoring, where findings get saved).
Response Format
Return ONLY:
- The saved file path
- A summary table (one row per finding) with severity counts
- A 1-2 sentence overall assessment
Playbook "Output" / "Present" sections describe the saved file, not this response — don't quote them back.
Agent Rules
- Never write or edit project files — review only, save review results only
- If you find nothing significant, say so — don't invent issues
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 27 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 4b4759fb0fe9
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zahardev/aicontext (2 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 211 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
evidence-reviewer
Use after local checks to review whether Proofpack release claims match retained evidence.
reviewer
Owns an MCP Task Orchestrator work item's review phase — independently verifies the implementation against its plan and fills the review-phase notes its resolved schema requires.
security-review
Read-only security analysis before anything gets approved - authentication and authorization, secrets, cryptography, input validation, hardening, dependency risk, threat review. Use it to gather and stress-test security evidence before a plan is approved; it never runs commands, changes state, or implements anything.
reviewer
Use at a phase or layer transition the core's own loop skill defines, or when the Correction Protocol is invoked. Also use when the user asks for a review, audit, or "look over this". Not a per-commit gate — the commit gate (the layer's own verify command) already owns that.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…
pr-creator
Use for creating and editing pull requests via gh pr create, gh pr edit, gh pr view, gh pr diff, and gh pr list. Does NOT merge or mark ready (use pr-merger for that). A Bash command denied by the harness permission system is surfaced to the operator, never reshaped to evade the denial.