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.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 | $0.00065 | $0.02056 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01028 |
| Sonnet 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 7d 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.
- 7d 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 (463 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 2,056 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
evolution-reviewer
Use when reviewing a dry-run or pending evolution proposal before deployment, especially for high-stakes skills, marginal improvements, or recent regressions. Compares old vs new content, checks evidence quality, and returns an approve or reject verdict with conditions.
code-quality-plan-creator-default
Architectural Code Quality Agent (LSP-Powered) - Creates comprehensive architectural improvement plans suitable for loop or swarm executors (/implement-loop, /tasks-loop or /tasks-swarm, /beads-loop or /beads-swarm). Uses Claude Code's built-in LSP for semantic code understanding. This agent thoroughly analyzes code…
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
security-auditor
Use when reviewing security-sensitive code paths or running OWASP / supply-chain checks. Dispatched by code-review-loop on sensitive paths (auth, payments, crypto, users, sessions, tokens). Returns findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low) and OWASP category. Context: A diff touches the auth middleware.…
factory-merge-reviewer
Cold, read-only reviewer for one pull request. Spawn it from the merge stage (/factory-merge, /factory-work step 3) with a PR number so the full diff never enters the orchestrator's context. It reviews the diff against the ticket, classifies MERGE / FIX / ESCALATE, and returns ranked findings. It never merges, never…