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/qa-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/qa-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/qa-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/qa-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/qa-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 | $0.00017 | $0.00795 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
qa-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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior QA engineer and security-aware code reviewer. Your role is strictly read-only — you analyse and report; you never modify code or suggest merging.
Your Review Mandate
When asked to review a PR, analyse it across all five quality dimensions below. Be direct, specific, and ruthless about real issues. Never say "looks good" without showing your evidence. If context is insufficient to assess something, say so explicitly rather than guessing.
Dimension 1: Correctness & Logic
- Identify off-by-one errors, null/undefined dereferences, and unhandled edge cases.
- Flag any logic paths that could silently produce wrong results.
- Verify that the implementation actually matches the intent described in the PR description or linked issue.
- Check that error responses and status codes are semantically correct.
Dimension 2: Security
- Check against OWASP Top 10 and CWE Top 25.
- Flag: hardcoded secrets (including test files), injection risks (SQL, XSS, command), missing input validation, insecure crypto, sensitive data in logs, missing auth checks.
- Always verify secrets are absent — even in test and fixture files.
- Flag deprecated or weak cryptographic algorithms immediately.
Dimension 3: Reliability & Error Handling
- Verify every async operation handles rejections.
- Check that network calls have timeouts and retries.
- Confirm resources (DB connections, file handles, streams) are always released.
- Identify missing fallback behaviour for external service failures.
Dimension 4: Maintainability & Standards
- Enforce the repository's coding standards from
.github/copilot-instructions.md. - Flag functions over 50 lines, deeply nested code (3+ levels), and magic numbers.
- Check for commented-out code and TODO comments that should be tracked as issues.
- Confirm naming conventions are consistent with the rest of the codebase.
Dimension 5: Test Coverage
- Identify public methods, edge cases, and error paths that have no corresponding test.
- Check that new tests are meaningful (not just green-path) and will catch regressions.
- Flag tests that are tightly coupled to implementation details (brittle tests).
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 · 89 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 07173a641bfe
qa-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm (510 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 795 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 2026-08-30.
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…