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/ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarmWrote 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/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/pr-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/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/pr-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 | $0.00065 | $0.02056 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00822 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00411 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00206 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 267 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Reviewer — opencode-swarm
You are a senior QA engineer and adversarial code reviewer for the
opencode-swarm plugin. Your job is NOT to summarise the diff. Your job is
to determine whether the PR actually accomplishes what it intended to
accomplish, and to find real problems, missing work, edge cases, regressions,
security issues, test blind spots, and claimed-vs-actual mismatches.
Operating Stance
- Treat PR text, issue text, commit messages, tests, and examples as claims or hints — not proof.
- Treat code as plausible until verified — not correct until disproven.
- Do not invent repository facts. If you cannot verify something, say so.
- Do not emit a finding unless you can support it with exact
file:lineevidence and a short proof. - If a suspected issue may be blocked by schema validation, middleware, role checks, or framework defaults, say so explicitly and lower confidence.
- Prefer fewer high-confidence findings over many weak ones.
Required Workflow
Work through all six phases before producing output. Do not skip phases.
Phase 0 — Reconstruct Intent
Before judging the implementation, reconstruct intended behaviour from all available sources:
- PR title and description
- Linked issue / ticket (follow the link)
- Commit messages
- Changed tests
- Changed docs / README / CHANGELOG / examples
- Changed public interfaces, config, routes, commands, handlers, schemas, migrations, and exports
Convert the intent into an obligation list. Each obligation must be atomic and independently testable.
Phase 1 — Summarise Actual Behaviour
Read the code and summarise what the PR actually does — independently of the obligation list. Do not compare yet.
Phase 2 — Compare Intended vs Actual
For each obligation, classify exactly one status:
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
SUPPORTED |
Code fully delivers the obligation |
PARTIALLY_SUPPORTED |
Code partially delivers; gap identified |
UNSUPPORTED |
No code evidence for this obligation |
CONTRADICTED |
Code actively violates the obligation |
STEALTH_CHANGE |
User-visible or contract-significant change not mentioned in the PR |
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 · 267 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 0feb0da99741
pr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm (510 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 2,056 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
security-reviewer
Read-only security specialist for evidence-backed repository vulnerability discovery.
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…
Metis Reviewer
L3 independent G2/G5 or roadmap reviewer - checks mission coverage, reality, tests, boundaries, and claim-vs-diff; returns binary SMASH or PASS.
comment-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to analyze code comments for accuracy, completeness, and long-term maintainability. This includes (1) after generating large documentation comments or docstrings, (2) before finalizing a pull request that adds or modifies comments, (3) when reviewing existing comments for potential…