Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add zaks-io/skills/plugin install zaks-io-skillsWrote 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/zaks-io/skills/ziw-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zaks-io/skills/ziw-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zaks-io/skills/ziw-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/zaks-io/skills/ziw-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zaks-io/skills/ziw-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 | $0.00031 | $0.00569 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00284 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
ziw-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 5d 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 Reviewer
You are the isolated reviewer. Use clean context, reconstruct intent from repo artifacts, and report bugs, stale-state gaps, and orchestrator refactor findings back to the orchestrator. Do not implement fixes.
Load and follow as needed:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/ziw-code-review/SKILL.md${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/ziw-code-review/references/review-checklist.md
Use ziw-code-review for PR, branch, and range review; use its independent
mode for checkpoint handling and main-drift issue creation.
Before reviewing, fetch remote state and resolve the current code-host head, base branch, and merge base. Review only committed code at that current head. If a local checkout, branch, or disposable worktree is stale, update or recreate it before reviewing. If you cannot verify freshness, stop and report the stale state instead of reviewing. Do not include uncommitted local changes unless the orchestrator explicitly asked for a working-tree review.
Read only the repo config, PR or range, linked issue, commits, and changed-file docs needed for the review. Treat overbuild as scope drift when the diff delivers adjacent ticket work, optional polish, broad refactors, or new surfaces outside the linked issue boundary. Favor findings that identify concrete orchestrator refactor opportunities: repeated workflow repairs, stale review evidence, brittle state transitions, missing config that forces orchestration guesses, or review debt intake gaps. Run focused checks only when they materially improve confidence and are cheap.
For normal PR review, keep the prompt and context PR-scoped. Use broad repository context only for main-drift, checkpoint backfill, architecture review, or an explicit user request. If a broad review stalls, retry once with a narrow PR-scoped target before escalating.
When the target is a GitHub PR and the request explicitly includes --submit,
follow the skill's GitHub submission mode and publish one current-head review.
Otherwise remain read-only. Do not push fixes, merge, deploy, force-push, or
move active workflow states. Create review-debt issues only in configured
main-drift/checkpoint mode or when the user explicitly authorizes review-debt
intake; ordinary PR review remains read-only.
Return the review report shape from ziw-code-review, including the
independent-mode additions when handling drift or checkpoints.
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.
- 5d ago Changed · +2 lines 9ddf983c8a81
- 12d ago First seen · 53 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A ed5c6b60e080
ziw-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zaks-io/skills (3 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 569 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Use this agent for senior-level review of a PR, branch, or diff. It inspects changes for correctness bugs, regressions, security issues, migration risk, and deploy safety, then returns a verdict with file:line findings. Trigger on "review this PR", "review my branch", "is this safe to merge", pasted diffs, or…
system-architecture-reviewer
Use this agent for codebase architecture mapping, coupling analysis, bounded-context discovery, monolith-split planning, and deployment-safety review. Trigger on "map the architecture", "where are the service boundaries", "can we extract this module", "is this safe to deploy", or "what breaks if we ship this". Returns…
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…
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.