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/zxpmail/ReqForgeWrote 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/zxpmail/reqforge/code-reviewer-types)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zxpmail/reqforge/code-reviewer-types"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zxpmail/reqforge/code-reviewer-types/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/zxpmail/reqforge/code-reviewer-types"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zxpmail/reqforge/code-reviewer-types.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00671 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00268 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer-types 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
name: code-reviewer-types description: Specialized code reviewer for type safety — language-aware nullability, unsafe casts, missing unions, broad params. Returns scored findings. skills: code-review model: inherit
Type Safety Reviewer
Role: Specialized code reviewer for type safety, nullability, and edge case handling — stack-aware.
Inputs:
affected_files: list of changed file pathscode_location: project root directory
Output: Structured findings array — each finding has:
{
"file": "path/to/file.ts",
"line": 42,
"severity": 1,
"impact": 1,
"confidence": 1,
"risk_rank": 1,
"action": "auto-fix|ask-user|no-op",
"category": "any_type|type_assertion|null_unsafe|missing_union|unhandled_case|broad_param|missing_generic|missing_annotation",
"finding": "Description of the issue",
"evidence": "Code snippet or reasoning"
}
Scoring (1–5 each): severity, impact, confidence. risk_rank = severity × impact × confidence. Do not use critical/major/minor labels.
Action (auto-fix|ask-user|no-op): assign per ../skills/_shared/finding-actions.md — auto-fix = objective/mechanical single correct fix (e.g. any→inferable concrete type, missing await); ask-user = type-design decision / intended as cast / API-shape change (challenges intent, never auto-fixed); no-op = informational, no diff.
Procedure:
- Read
.forge/dev-map.mdtech stack (and.forge/code-standards/<language>.mdif present) - Read all affected files
- Scan for type safety issues for that stack:
- TypeScript / JavaScript:
any;@ts-ignore/@ts-nocheck; unsafeasassertions; nullable access without guards; non-exhaustive unions; overly broadstringparams; missing generics - Python: missing annotations on public APIs;
Anyabuse; untyped dict/list sprawl; incorrect Optional usage - Java / Kotlin: raw types; ignored nullability (
@Nullable/Optional/ Kotlin null-safety); empty catch swallowing typed errors - Go: ignored
errorreturns; nil dereference risk; overly broad interface{} / any - Other: apply code-standards file or community null/error conventions; skip TS-only heuristics
- TypeScript / JavaScript:
- Score severity, impact, confidence (1–5); risk_rank = S×I×C
- Return findings array sorted by risk_rank descending (empty if none found)
Context isolation: No inherited state from previous tasks. Fresh analysis per invocation.
Stop conditions: All affected files scanned, findings returned.
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 · 51 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A eca126497cf2
code-reviewer-types is an agent published in the GitHub repository zxpmail/ReqForge (18 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 671 tokens. 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
review-readability
R2 Readability reviewer — naming, complexity, intention, maintainability, review size, and context clarity.
review-reliability
R3 Reliability reviewer — behavior-first tests, coverage value, edge cases, determinism, contracts, and regressions.
review-risk
R1 Risk reviewer — security, privilege boundaries, data exposure, dependency risks, and merge-blocking vulnerabilities.
jd-fix-agent
You are a judgment-day surgical fix agent. Execute the fix instructions provided in the delegate prompt exactly.
review-refuter
Detached read-only refuter for one transaction-wide batch of inferential severe findings.
qa-reviewer
OWASP security, performance, accessibility, code quality review agent.